Hi Chris, Thanks for the feedback!
1. Great point, this is the more correct general aim of the proposal. 2. Thanks for the suggestions on points a and b, they are both great. I will incorporate them. 3. Yep, I'll add this to the sample code and add an explanation. 4. Great point about the addition of the extra configuration properties. By "If we decide to include these properties, we should also update the "Synchrony" section to be agnostic about what the error reporter is doing under the hood since there won't necessarily be a Kafka producer involved in handling records given to the error reporter," are you referring to the fact that if people only choose to enable logging and not sending to a DLQ, there won't necessarily be a producer involved? 5. Yeah, this is correct; I'll update to correctly state this. 6. Thanks, I'll take a look into making the metrics section more robust. 7. Yep, I'll add an explanation to the "Rejected Alternatives." Best, Aakash
