Hi all, A while back, I submitted a proposal for the REST spec aimed at formalizing a mechanism for circulating arbitrary properties from catalog servers to request signer clients:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15850 While the proposed modification is minimal, the review process has stalled over whether to use "SHOULD" or "MUST" when defining the property-passing requirements, which is why I am bringing this topic to your attention. In my view, the goal is to establish a clear contract where the REST catalog server, the signer client, and the signer endpoint all commit to these new rules. Consequently, I believe "MUST" is the more suitable term. Naturally, catalog servers following this new contract will need to accommodate legacy clients. In my view, the specific handling of these older clients is a matter of protocol misalignment mitigation strategies and is not strictly relevant to the REST specification itself. The goal of a protocol spec is to define what compliant parties must do, not what non-compliant ones could do. I would appreciate hearing your perspective on this. Thanks, Alex
