Change network.peer.address to opt-in on http.client.open_connections (related to #3279) - #3759

This PR contains changes to area(s) that do not have an active SIG/project and will be auto-closed:

• http

Such changes may be rejected or put on hold until a new SIG/project is established.

Please refer to the Semantic Convention Areas
document to see the current active SIGs and also to learn how to kick start a new one.

@open-telemetry/specs-semconv-maintainers

This PR was auto-closed by a bot because the HTTP SIG is marked inactive in AREAS.md. But that doc explicitly says "Bugs and bugfixes are welcome", so this PR should not have been auto-closed. (Its fixing an issue, not sure if it is a bug, in a in-development metric)

Also, this bot action doesn't seem very welcoming to contributors:

• Contributing guide does not mention the auto-close anywhere..
• AREAS.md doesn't warn that PRs touching inactive areas will be auto-closed either..

A contributor (especially a newcomer) following the docs would have no way to anticipate this. Would it make sense to either make this more obvious in contributing/areas.md docs to avoid the shock?

In the meantime, could a maintainer reopen this PR? Happy to address any review feedback for this one.

@lmolkova I kept the attribute as recommended in the connection.duration metric as it is an histogram, and the original issue only occurs when UpDownCounter is involved (due to its always-cumulative nature). Please confirm if this is acceptable. (I saw you approved, but want to call this one out specifically)

@cijothomas so if I understand correctly:

• updowncounter: let's say we started connection to 1.2.3.4 and recorded a counter, 5 min later connection closes and was never re-established to that IP. 10 days later the process is still alive and we're still reporting 0. This is essentially a leak. Even if we had finish() we wouldn't necessarily know in the instrumentation if it's the time to call it - we don't know if there are other active connections to that IP. It'd need some background mechanism in SDK to drop stall series with value 0.
• histogram: we won't keep an active time series for 1.2.3.4, we'll never report it after connection closes. While cardinality could be high over long period of time, within short periods it's usually fixed.

If it's correct than I think it makes sense to make it opt-in on the updowncounter and keep on histogram. I added a comment to #1854 tracking general metric guidance to potentially document it.

@cijothomas so if I understand correctly:

• updowncounter: let's say we started connection to 1.2.3.4 and recorded a counter, 5 min later connection closes and was never re-established to that IP. 10 days later the process is still alive and we're still reporting 0. This is essentially a leak. Even if we had finish() we wouldn't necessarily know in the instrumentation if it's the time to call it - we don't know if there are other active connections to that IP. It'd need some background mechanism in SDK to drop stall series with value 0.
• histogram: we won't keep an active time series for 1.2.3.4, we'll never report it after connection closes. While cardinality could be high over long period of time, within short periods it's usually fixed.

If it's correct than I think it makes sense to make it opt-in on the updowncounter and keep on histogram. I added a comment to #1854 tracking general metric guidance to potentially document it.

Your explanation is correct. Histogram also would have this problem of never forgetting the 1.2.3.4 entry, if user opts for Cumulative. With delta, Histogram "forgets".

UpDownCounter is somewhat special - even when user says DELTA, UpDownCounter actually still does cumulative. i.e - a normal user has no easy way to make UpDownCounter behave in DELTA mode!
See https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/metrics/sdk_exporters/otlp.md#additional-environment-variable-configuration

(it is possible for an advanced user to control this, but that might defeat the entire point of UpDownCounter. I guess these are spec problems, and should be addressed there.)

@cijothomas

Histogram also would have this problem of never forgetting the 1.2.3.4 entry, if user opts for Cumulative. With delta, Histogram "forgets".

I see, I'd prefer to be consistent then and make attribute opt-in for both.

@cijothomas

Histogram also would have this problem of never forgetting the 1.2.3.4 entry, if user opts for Cumulative. With delta, Histogram "forgets".

I see, I'd prefer to be consistent then and make attribute opt-in for both.

Changed both! (I was incorrectly assuming the histogram was already stable, but then realized it is not!)