Closed Bug 1424710 Opened 6 years ago Closed 6 years ago

extend http_channel_disposition telemetry

Categories

(Core :: Networking: HTTP, enhancement, P2)

enhancement

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla59
Tracking Status
firefox59 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: mcmanus, Assigned: mcmanus, NeedInfo)

Details

(Whiteboard: [necko-triaged])

Attachments

(1 file)

We need this in the rcwn era and it will be helpful evaluation a number of latency/bw tradeoffs going forward.
Comment on attachment 8936245 [details]
Bug 1424710 - extend http_channel_disposition telemetry

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/207008/#review212800

LGTM. Not sure if it needs data review as well.
Attachment #8936245 - Flags: review?(valentin.gosu) → review+
Assignee: nobody → mcmanus
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: [necko-triaged]
Pushed by mcmanus@ducksong.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/852d5fc05a23
extend http_channel_disposition telemetry r=valentin
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/852d5fc05a23
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla59
Extending the lifetime of a data collection does indeed require Data Collection Review. Especially if you're changing it to never.
Flags: needinfo?(valentin.gosu)
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
Flags: needinfo?(valentin.gosu)
When I recently spoke with Rebecca she was very clear that this kind of machine level general web characterizaton data was fine for never and did not require review. not true?
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
I'm just the dev who gets emails when Histograms.json changes, so I'm not invited to meetings with such rarefied air :)

ni?Rebecca to comment on Data Collection Review for extending the expiry of (looks like) Category 1 "Internet Health" measures.
Flags: needinfo?(rweiss)
If this data collection has already gone through review and this is just to extend the expiry, we can amend the previous review effort with the answer to a single question: who is primarily associated with monitoring/owning this probe for the foreseeable future?

Otherwise, if this probe has never gone through review before, we should apply the current data review process to this effort.  For a type 1 measurement, this can be expedited clearly.

So followups:

1) Was there data review for this probe somewhere already?  If so, we can r+ by simply identifying in this bug thread who is the permanent monitoring/owning individual.
2) If there is no data review to be found, please answer the questions in this form here (https://github.com/mozilla/data-review/blob/master/request.md) and I can perform the review quickly (just r? me back with answers in hand).
Flags: needinfo?(rweiss)
Flags: needinfo?(mcmanus)
Flags: needinfo?(chutten)
HTTP_CHANNEL_DISPOSITION was added in bug 1341128 and was data-r+ from bsmedberg, so I think we're in Case 1 here.
Flags: needinfo?(chutten)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: