Hi all,

The spec changes PR has received 4 approvals. I will start another
VOTE thread shortly.

Thanks,
Alex

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 3:06 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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

Reply via email to