Thank you Steven! It's exciting to see this feature moving forward! Alex
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:39 PM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > my +1 too > > We can consider this vote successful. I just merged the PR. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:23 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Ryan! >> >> With that, is it necessary to start a new vote or can we consider this >> one as successful? >> >> I'm counting so far: >> >> - 5 binding +1s: Eduard, Matt, Prashant, Daniel, Ryan >> - 5 non-binding +1s: Dmitri, Christian, Ajantha, JB and myself. >> - No -1s >> >> Thanks, >> Alex >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 8:23 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Yes, this look better now so I'll update my vote to +1. >> > >> > Thanks, Alex! >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:37 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Ryan, >> >> >> >> That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of >> >> the Java library and the associated removal timeline. >> >> >> >> Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with >> >> > supported endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if >> >> > the catalog supports signing through this new path or should default to >> >> > the old behavior. >> >> > >> >> > I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the >> >> > removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed). >> >> > >> >> > -Dan >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> -0 >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the >> >> >> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now >> >> >> references the Java library versions and states that support will be >> >> >> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions >> >> >> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear >> >> >> how we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the >> >> >> solution is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a >> >> >> summary of the discussion where we decided to deprecate this so >> >> >> quickly? I thought that there were projects that implement remote >> >> >> signing, so how can we expect people to move in a Java minor release >> >> >> timeframe? What is the plan for falling back to the old API and for >> >> >> how long? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we >> >> >>> should probably just start a new vote. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -Dan >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> +1 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi all, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes: >> >> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450 >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >> >>>>> Alex >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > Hi all, >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > FYI the required changes were implemented: >> >> >>>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450 >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > Thanks, >> >> >>>>> > Alex >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra >> >> >>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >>>>> > > Hi all, >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >>>>> > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the >> >> >>>>> > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're >> >> >>>>> > > ready. >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >>>>> > > Thanks, >> >> >>>>> > > Alex >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >>>>> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks >> >> >>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily) >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me. We >> >> >>>>> > > > introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I >> >> >>>>> > > > strongly oppose codifying in the spec. >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing >> >> >>>>> > > > portion of the spec without a spec change and is >> >> >>>>> > > > unnecessarily strict. >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't >> >> >>>>> > > > support this change until we remove that. >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > -Dan >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > >> >> >>>>> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >> >>>>> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> +1 (non binding) >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> Regards >> >> >>>>> > > >> JB >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra >> >> >>>>> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> Hi all, >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the >> >> >>>>> > > >>> promotion of the >> >> >>>>> > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec. >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> Related links: >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> ML thread: >> >> >>>>> > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7 >> >> >>>>> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450 >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours. >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint >> >> >>>>> > > >>> to the main REST spec >> >> >>>>> > > >>> [ ] +0 >> >> >>>>> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why >> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >> >>>>> > > >>> Thanks, >> >> >>>>> > > >>> Alex
