Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify standards for vendor inclusion criteria. #2238

Closed
austinlparker opened this issue Jan 31, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Clarify standards for vendor inclusion criteria. #2238

austinlparker opened this issue Jan 31, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
discussion Input from everyone is helpful to drive this forward

Comments

@austinlparker
Copy link
Member

In regards to https://opentelemetry.io/ecosystem/vendors/, there have been some questions arising about what exactly 'Distribution' and 'Native OTLP' mean.

Upon investigation, vendor support is clarified in the specification @ https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/vendors.md; However, this does not align with the columns on that page. That said, this offers some possible paths:

  • Update the vendor page to align with the specification (remove 'distribution' and 'native otlp', change to 'supports opentelemetry' and 'implements opentelemetry')
  • Update the specification to add greater specificity in categories
  • A secret, third option
@cartermp
Copy link
Contributor

I would propose adding the following to "supports opentelemetry"

  • By supporting OTLP ingest on their backend directly
  • By supporting an OpenTelemetry SDK distribution

And then also updating the table to have this split, if appropriate.

@cartermp
Copy link
Contributor

While we're at it, we should also decide if we consider something as "supporting opentelemetry" if they still require the use of a non-otel component in the middle, like an agent that supports OTLP but emits their vendor-specific data format.

@theletterf theletterf added the discussion Input from everyone is helpful to drive this forward label Apr 9, 2024
@open-telemetry open-telemetry locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 3, 2024
@svrnm svrnm converted this issue into discussion #4416 May 3, 2024

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
discussion Input from everyone is helpful to drive this forward
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants