Hi all, In yesterday's catalog sync, we decided to split the current PR in two, one for spec changes, the other for code changes.
Here they are: - Spec changes: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450 - Code changes: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15451 The ongoing vote has therefore been cancelled – apologies for the inconvenience. Once reviewed and approved, #15450 will be submitted to a new vote. Thanks, Alex On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:13 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Yufei, > > OK, I will start the VOTE thread shortly. Stay tuned! > > Thanks, > Alex > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 8:44 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks a lot for working on it, Alex. I think it's ready to open a vote. > > Yufei > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 4:47 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> The PR to promote the signer endpoint to the main specification has > >> now received 3 approvals [1]. A big thank you to Eduard, Prashant and > >> Steve for their thorough reviews! > >> > >> With these approvals in hand, is this the right time to start a VOTE > >> thread, or should we wait a bit longer to gather more input and > >> reviews? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alex > >> > >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15112 > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 5:26 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > The PR is up for review: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15112 > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Alex > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 6:49 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > A VOTE for REST spec updates usually happens after the changes are > >> > > available to review. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:39 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you all! > >> > >> > >> > >> I think we have an agreement here. I'm happy to start working on the > >> > >> PR, but I recall that a VOTE thread is necessary for this type of > >> > >> modification. Should we initiate the vote now, or wait until the PR is > >> > >> ready for merging (and vote on the PR contents)? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:08 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > +1 from me. > >> > >> > Promoting the signer endpoint to the table level makes it more > >> > >> > consistent with other table scoped APIs, and it cleanly provides > >> > >> > the catalog(warehouse), namespace and table context without relying > >> > >> > on provider specific properties. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Yufei > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:08 PM Christian Thiel > >> > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> +1 from me too, thanks Alex! > >> > >> >> I tested returning the new Endpoint as the `s3.signer.endpoint` > >> > >> >> config of a LoadTableResult against all Iceberg Releases from > >> > >> >> 1.6.1 with Spark as well as pyiceberg 0.9 and 0.10 without > >> > >> >> problems. As long as the behaviour of the Endpoint stays the same > >> > >> >> for S3, I don't see any issues. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 18:43, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> +1 > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> Regards > >> > >> >>> JB > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 3:29 PM Alexandre Dutra > >> > >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> Hi all, > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> We discussed remote signing last Wednesday during the catalog > >> > >> >>>> sync > >> > >> >>>> meeting and we all agreed that the default signing endpoint [1] > >> > >> >>>> is too > >> > >> >>>> rigid. It lacks information about the table and namespace, but > >> > >> >>>> is also > >> > >> >>>> unaware of catalogs/warehouses, which can be challenging when > >> > >> >>>> the same > >> > >> >>>> signer client has to access multiple catalogs. > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> One of the ideas that emerged was to promote the signer endpoint > >> > >> >>>> to > >> > >> >>>> the "top-level" spec, under the table path. In short, it would > >> > >> >>>> become > >> > >> >>>> something like this: > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables/{table}/sign > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> Promoting the endpoint makes it more aligned with similar ones, > >> > >> >>>> like > >> > >> >>>> the table credentials endpoint. It also solves the problem of > >> > >> >>>> passing > >> > >> >>>> the namespace, table and warehouse identifiers to the server. > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> The endpoint would become provider-agnostic though. The current > >> > >> >>>> endpoint structure appears to be sufficiently generic, showing no > >> > >> >>>> S3-specific quirks. For example, implementing Azure support > >> > >> >>>> using SAS > >> > >> >>>> tokens seems feasible at first glance without any apparent > >> > >> >>>> obstacles > >> > >> >>>> (that I could think of). But there might be implications that > >> > >> >>>> I'm not > >> > >> >>>> immediately seeing. > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> Of course, we would need to migrate the existing table > >> > >> >>>> properties to > >> > >> >>>> more neutral names, e.g.: > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> s3.signer.uri -> signer.uri > >> > >> >>>> s3.signer.endpoint -> signer.endpoint > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> What are your thoughts on this idea? > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> Thanks, > >> > >> >>>> Alex > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> [1]: > >> > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/55bfc7e82d03b5038bc5d0da852bd16615486926/aws/src/main/resources/s3-signer-open-api.yaml#L61
