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 >
