Re: Improved DeletionTime serialization to reduce disk size

[Brandon Williams]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 11:47 PM Berenguer Blasi
 wrote:
> one q that came up during the review: What should we do if we find a 
> markForDeleteAt (mfda) usging the MSByte? That is a mfda beyond year 4254:
>
> A. That is a mistake/bug. I makes no sense when localDeletionTime can't 
> already go any further than year 2106. We should reject/fail, maybe log and 
> add an upgrade note.

I think creation of doomstones is always a bug, but perhaps there is a
use case I cannot think of.  One option that was discussed is setting
a default for the maximum_timestamp_fail_threshold which I think could
make sense, since it would provide protection but allow a way out.

> B. That was supported, regardless of how weird it may be. Cap it to the 
> current max year 4254, maybe log and add an upgrade note.

I am not a fan of doing something other than what we were asked to do,
I think we should either reject it, or do it.

Re: CASSANDRA-18554 - mTLS based client and internode authenticators

[Dinesh Joshi]

Hi folks,

Given the feedback received, we thought it would be best to do a CEP. Here's 
the link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-34

It incorporates the feedback we've received. Please let me know if there are 
any other comments. We'll wait for a bit and start a VOTE thread for it.

Thanks,

Dinesh

> On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:13 AM, Dinesh Joshi  wrote:
> 
> I can certainly start a VOTE thread for the CQL syntax addition. There
> hasn't been any feedback that suggests that there is an unaddressed
> concern to the changes we are making.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure if there was explicit decision that has resulted
> in an update to the project's governance to reflect this requirement? If
> there is I seem to have missed it. There was a discussion in the past
> about notifying the dev list to ensure there is visibility to changes
> but I don't recall whether there was an explicit voting requirement.
> 
> On 7/11/23 19:17, Yuki Morishita wrote:
>>> folks - I think we’ve achieved lazy consensus here. Please continue
>> with feedback on the jira.
>> 
>> Hi Dinesh,
>> 
>> As Jeremiah commented on JIRA, shouldn't we have a vote in the ML?
>> 
>> For the future reference, in my opinion, adding new CQL syntax should
>> have a CEP as it is not something we can easily change once defined.
>