From 161ce662dc3adaf2c6a5c8fcd2c72db477cd41d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Pease <7442091+peasead@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:19:50 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] added context for concerns --- rfcs/text/0000-gen_ai-security-fields.md | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/text/0000-gen_ai-security-fields.md b/rfcs/text/0000-gen_ai-security-fields.md index fed0425cae..e7672b0799 100644 --- a/rfcs/text/0000-gen_ai-security-fields.md +++ b/rfcs/text/0000-gen_ai-security-fields.md @@ -214,12 +214,18 @@ The goal here is to research and understand the impact of these changes on users ## Concerns -We have begun using OTel fields that were experimental and have since been depricated. This will lead to a breaking change. +**Experimental vs. Stable** +We have begun using OTel fields that were experimental and have since been depricated. Example is `gen_ai.prompt`. This field has been deprecated by OTel and is handled by [`gen_ai.user.message.content`](https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions/blob/main/docs/gen-ai/gen-ai-events.md)(?), but it is being used in the AWS Bedrock integration: - AWS Bedrock integration `gen_ai.prompt` being used [source](https://github.com/elastic/integrations/blob/main/packages/aws_bedrock/data_stream/invocation/fields/fields.yml#L64-L66) - [OTel deprecated fields](https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions/blob/main/docs/attributes-registry/gen-ai.md#deprecated-genai-attributes) +Almost all of the GenAI fields are "Experimental", if we need to wait for "Stable", we'll probably want to pause this PR and recommend maturity promotion to the OTel team. + +**Fields not in OTel** +Also, some of these fields do not exist in OTel yet, so do they need to be added in OTel before they can be considered for inclusion into ECS? +