J. Kalyana Sundaram

Thanks for the feedback and the above comment. We are looking to understand better the use cases you describe above: will you be able to share a use case of...

Thanks Sergey for filing this issue. Following up from our last discussion, I checked for the usage of the word "request" in the latest version of the trace context spec,...

This is something we will consider for Level 2 cleanup. We can add information about various implementations. Examples of categories could be: tracing vendors/systems, cloud vendors, library authors, language authors...

Daniel pointed out that the above wording is for any responses that include the above information (and not necessarily pointing to the response headers we want to standardize going forward)....

We will consider this cleanup for Level 2. Not absolutely required, but more of an editorial fix.

Leaving this issue open to decide if we can backport this (https://github.com/w3c/trace-context/pull/482) to level-1 of the spec. I feel the wording in #482 ("“MUST NOT contain PII”) is sufficiently backwards...

Assigned to Philippe per our discussion in the DT working group meeting today, thanks Philippe!

We need to understand the use cases that absolutely need this support.

> When a W3C tracecontext w/o the new random flag is sampled, SDKs should use an unspecified hashing algorithm on the TraceID to construct 56 questionably-random bits. When the new...

Filed request for TAG review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/777