+1 (non-binding) John Zhuge
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:45 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Best, > Jack Ye > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov > <dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: > >> Thanks for the reply Eduard! >> >> I think it is fine to defer fine-tuning credential refreshes to a later >> PR. >> >> I'm upgrading my vote to +1 (non-binding). >> >> Cheers, >> Dmitri. >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:11 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hey Dmitri, >>> >>> the idea behind the endpoint itself is really just to provide *valid* >>> credentials for a given table when a client asks for them. >>> If the server returned you two S3 credentials, the client will use the >>> one with the longest prefix and if that credential expires, it will ask the >>> server again for *valid* credentials. >>> That means the server can again return you two S3 credentials, even if >>> that second unused credential from the previous endpoint call didn't expire >>> yet. >>> I don't think we'd want to complicate the endpoint *at this point* to >>> have a differentiation between what specific credentials a client wants to >>> receive from the server. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eduard >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 6:36 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov >>> <dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> -0 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> If multiple credentials are vended for a table (which is allowed) the >>>> current API requires all credentials to be refreshed, when any of the >>>> previous credentials expires. I think this is suboptimal (but can probably >>>> be made to work in most practical cases). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Dmitri. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 6:07 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>>> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to vote on #11281 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11281>, which introduces a >>>>> new endpoint and allows retrieving/refreshing vended credentials for a >>>>> given table. >>>>> >>>>> Please vote +1 if you generally agree with the path forward. >>>>> >>>>> Please vote in the next 72 hours >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1, commit the proposed spec changes >>>>> [ ] -0 >>>>> [ ] -1, do not make these changes because . . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Eduard >>>>> >>>>
