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 >
