With 10 +1 (4 binding) the VOTE passed. Thanks everyone
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 4:50 AM Fanng <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Christian Thiel <[email protected]> 于2024年10月23日周三 08:22写道： > >> +1 (non-binding). Great feature, thanks! >> ------------------------------ >> *Von:* Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> >> *Gesendet:* Tuesday, October 22, 2024 8:00:00 PM >> *An:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Re: [VOTE] Endpoint for refreshing vended credentials >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:20 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks for your work on this! >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 2:47 PM Prashant Singh <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Regards, >> Prashant >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:50 AM John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> John Zhuge >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:45 AM Jack Ye <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> Best, >> Jack Ye >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov >> <[email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 >> >>
