rfc(feature): Aligning the Span Schema with OpenTelemetry

Author: AbhiPrasad

README.md

@@ -45,3 +45,4 @@ This repository contains RFCs and DACIs. Lost?
 - [0081-sourcemap-debugid](text/0081-sourcemap-debugid.md): Reliable JavaScript/SourceMap processing via `DebugId`
 - [0084-move-docs-to-sentry-repository](text/0084-move-docs-to-sentry-repository.md): Move onboarding docs from sentry-docs over to sentry repository
 - [0086-sentry-bundler-plugins-api](text/0086-sentry-bundler-plugins-api.md): Sentry Bundler Plugins API
+- [0089-aligning-the-span-schema-with-open-telemetry](text/0089-aligning-the-span-schema-with-open-telemetry.md): Aligning the Span Schema with OpenTelemetry

text/0089-aligning-the-span-schema-with-open-telemetry.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+- Start Date: 2023-05-10
+- RFC Type: feature
+- RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/89
+- RFC Status: draft
+
+# Summary
+
+One paragraph explanation of the feature or document purpose.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
+
+# Background
+
+The reason this decision or document is required. This section might not always exist.
+
+# Supporting Data
+
+[Metrics to help support your decision (if applicable).]
+
+# Options Considered
+
+If an RFC does not know yet what the options are, it can propose multiple options. The
+preferred model is to propose one option and to provide alternatives.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Why should we not do this? What are the drawbacks of this RFC or a particular option if
+multiple options are presented.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through this RFC?
+- What issues are out of scope for this RFC but are known?