Skip to content
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

[Call For Participation] List of policies we would like to implement with Weaver’s policy engine #185

Open
lquerel opened this issue May 29, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@lquerel
Copy link
Contributor

lquerel commented May 29, 2024

This list aims to:

  1. Keep track of the policies identified by the community.
  2. Identify the sources of information needed to define the policies in Rego (e.g., semconv before resolution, resolved telemetry schema).

Identified policies:

Please add a new comment to propose new policy ideas. At this stage, do not worry about implementation details. The goal is simply to identify what is missing in the engine and in the currently supported data sources.

@lquerel lquerel added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label May 29, 2024
@jsuereth
Copy link
Contributor

  • A template attribute forms a namespace, and we should not allow attributes below it.
    e.g. http.request.headers.<key> is implied by the template attribute http.request.headers (this may be done by semconv#1068)
  • We do not allow the removal of an attribute once added to the registry. It must exist SOMEWHERE in a group.
  • We do not allow the removal of a metric name once added to the registry (the group can move around, be deprecated, but its "name" must be exist)

@lquerel
Copy link
Contributor Author

lquerel commented Jun 6, 2024

  • A semconv registry greater than or equal to v1.19.0 should not allow optional requirement levels. This requirement_level has been removed between v1.18.0 and v.1.19.0.

Note: we need to find a way to expose the tag or the registry version to the policies one way or another.

@jsuereth
Copy link
Contributor

@lquerel should we close this issue now?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants