> 1. Should audit logs prioritize consistency with internal systems or user intuition?
I'd prefer to prioritize user intuition, since putting the storage port in the host field does not reflect how end-user traffic works in production. Jaydeep On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 6:27 AM Paulo Motta <pa...@apache.org> wrote: > 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]" ? > >
