Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Distributed Tracing WG: Baggage specification (#650)

Thanks for the thorough reply to my earlier questions, @SergeyKanzhelev! They were helpful. For what it's worth though, I still didn't really get the use case you're trying to support until I looked at the [working group's charter](https://www.w3.org/2020/03/proposed-distributed-tracing-wg.html). You might want to take a bit of the scope section from the charter to set the scene in your explainer.

Also, we've been talking about the name of the feature. `Baggage` is definitely a US/UK idiom, and may not be intuitive to anyone who hasn't been focusing on distributed tracing. Might it be useful to use something like `Trace ID additional header`? (Maybe best to do some user research on this — the important thing is that it's immediately understandable to as many of your users as possible.)

And finally, in the privacy vein, we talked about whether it would be good for this to behave differently in private/incognito browsing mode. It struck us that there is nothing to stop the application provider from sending headers derived from information tied to the machine or usual user (their IP address, their user ID, etc.). We wondered if it might make sense to ask user agents to ignore the trace ID altogether in when in private/incognito mode, so that the user's experience isn't tied to the experience that same user (or whoever they share a browser with) gets when not in private/incognito mode. What are your thoughts on this? 




-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/650#issuecomment-969149446