off-topic, but it would be great to start using actual host IDs as identifiers everywhere rather than perpetuating IP:ports which are not actual node ids :( but I believe this would be an utopia :D
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM Mick <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to bring up for discussion the host field in audit logs, which > currently shows > > the storage port (e.g., 192.168.1.100:7000) instead of the native port > users expect to see. > > > > Background: > > - Original implementation[1] used storage port for consistency with > other subsystems > > - CASSANDRA-7544[2] enabled multiple instances per IP, making storage > port the > > standard differentiator > > - This creates confusion for users reviewing client audit logs who > expect to see the > > native port (i.e 9042) > > > > Arguments: > > - Keep storage port: Consistent with gossip/repair/logs, maintains > existing behavior > > - Switch to native port: More intuitive for audit log analysis, > matches user expectations > > > > Considerations: > > 1. Should audit logs prioritize consistency with internal systems or > user intuition? > > 2. Would this change break existing tooling? > > 3. Should the change only land in trunk, or backport to all branches > up to 4.0? > > > Out of curiosity… > Is this host field used for anything other than identification ? > If it's purely an identifier field without need to the format, could it be > in the form "192.168.1.100:9042[7000]" ?
