Bogdan Drutu

> I'm w/ @tigrannajaryan in that I think having them here is generally helpful and helps us avoid (obvious) breaking changes in their definition as well as gives folks "one...

> If it is a problem, since trace IDs can come from untrusted, non-random sources, do we open up a DDoS/Security/performance issue when using trace IDs as sole, deterministic input...

> Is this a problem at all? Or is the ParentBased approach enough (in combination with any, not necessarily trace-id-based probability-based sampling of root spans)? I've seen implementation that use...

+1 for this, I was also confused when the predefined "delta" preference does not do all deltas (up down are not delta), or "stateless". It does a "hybrid" whatever I...

The "breaking change" steps seems super cool, but I fail to understand how that fails with this change. See https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto/actions/runs/3070753656/jobs/4960806704

I understand now: ``` Choose a category based on these criteria: If you distribute your generated source code outside of a monorepo in any capacity, or want to make sure...

> what is the motivation for this change? or is it just an experiment? Initially I thought that the name may improve usability, so wanted to create a PR to...

@tigrannajaryan I was not sold on the name, I was hacking around to see how the new name looks and found that I break the requirements, and that triggered me...

When I read this I immediately thought about the Builder being possible to be reused (because it is kind of that intermediate state). Not sure if that is the right...

Marked this as required for GA to make a decision if this is important enough or not to have it before GA.