Hi Jun,
Thanks for the comments.
12. I bumped the LeaderAndIsrRequest because I removed the topic name field
in the response. It may be possible to avoid bumping the version without
that change, but I may be missing something.
I believe StopReplica is actually on version 3 now, but because version 2
is flexible, I kept that listed as version 2 on the KIP page. However, you
may be right in that we may need to bump the version on StopReplica to deal
with deletion differently as mentioned above. I don't know if I have a big
preference over used tagged fields or not.
13. I was thinking that in the case where the file and the request topic
ids don't match, it means that the broker's topic/the one in the file has
been deleted. In that case, we would need to delete the old topic and start
receiving the new version. If the topic name were to change, but the ids
still matched, the file would also need to update. Am I missing a case
where the file would be correct and not the request?
Thanks,
Justine
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Justine,
>
> Thanks for the reply. A couple of more comments below.
>
> 12. ListOffset and OffsetForLeader currently don't support flexible fields.
> So, we have to bump up the version number and use IBP at least for these
> two requests. Note that it seems 2.7.0 will require IBP anyway because of
> changes in KAFKA-10435. Also, it seems that the version for
> LeaderAndIsrRequest and StopReplica are bumped even though we only added a
> tagged field. But since IBP is needed anyway, we may want to revisit the
> overall tagged field choice.
>
> 13. The only downside is the potential confusion on which one is the source
> of truth if they don't match. Another option is to include those fields in
> the metadata file when we actually change the directory structure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 2:01 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I've thought some more about removing the topic name field from some of
> the
> > requests. On closer inspection of the requests/responses, it seems that
> the
> > internal changes would be much larger than I expected. Some protocols
> > involve clients, so they would require changes too. I'm thinking that for
> > now, removing the topic name from these requests and responses are out of
> > scope.
> >
> > I have decided to just keep the change LeaderAndIsrResponse to remove the
> > topic name, and have updated the KIP to reflect this change. I have also
> > mentioned the other requests and responses in future work.
> >
> > I'm hoping to start the voting process soon, so let me know if there is
> > anything else we should discuss.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Justine
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > > To follow up on some of the other comments:
> > >
> > > 10/11) We can remove the topic name from these requests/responses, and
> > > that means we will just have to make a few internal changes to make
> > > partitions accessible by topic id and partition. I can update the KIP
> to
> > > remove them unless anyone thinks they should stay.
> > >
> > > 12) Addressed in the previous email. I've updated the KIP to include
> > > tagged fields for the requests and responses. (More on that below)
> > >
> > > 13) I think part of the idea for including this information is to
> prepare
> > > for future changes. Perhaps the directory structure might change from
> > > topicName_partitionNumber to something like topicID_partitionNumber.
> Then
> > > it would be useful to have the topic name in the file since it would
> not
> > be
> > > in the directory structure. Supporting topic renames might be easier if
> > the
> > > other fields are included. Would there be any downsides to including
> this
> > > information?
> > >
> > > 14) Yes, we would need to copy the partition metadata file in this
> > > process. I've updated the KIP to include this.
> > >
> > > 15) I believe Lucas meant v1 and v2 here. He was referring to how the
> > > requests would fall under different IBP and meant that older brokers
> > would
> > > have to use the older version of the request and the existing topic
> > > deletion process. At first, it seemed like tagged fields would resolve
> > > the IBP issue. However, we may need IBP for this request after all
> since
> > > the controller handles the topic deletion differently depending on the
> > IBP
> > > version. In an older version, we can't just send a StopReplica delete
> the
> > > topic immediately like we'd want to for this KIP.
> > >
> > > This makes me wonder if we want tagged fields on all the requests after
> > > all. Let me know your thoughts!
> > >
> > > Justine
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:03 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >> Jun brought up a good point in his last email about tagged fields, and
> > >> I've updated the KIP to reflect that the changes to requests and
> > responses
> > >> will be in the form of tagged fields to avoid changing IBP.
> > >>
> > >> Jun: I plan on sending a followup email to address some of the other
> > >> points.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Justine
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi, Justine,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the updated KIP. A few comments below.
> > >>>
> > >>> 10. LeaderAndIsr Response: Do we need the topic name?
> > >>>
> > >>> 11. For the changed request/response, other than LeaderAndIsr,
> > >>> UpdateMetadata, Metadata, do we need to include the topic name?
> > >>>
> > >>> 12. It seems that upgrades don't require IBP. Does that mean the new
> > >>> fields
> > >>> in all the request/response are added as tagged fields without
> bumping
> > up
> > >>> the request version? It would be useful to make that clear.
> > >>>
> > >>> 13. Partition Metadata file: Do we need to include the topic name and
> > the
> > >>> partition id since they are implied in the directory name?
> > >>>
> > >>> 14. In the JBOD mode, we support moving a partition's data from one
> > disk
> > >>> to
> > >>> another. Will the new partition metadata file be copied during that
> > >>> process?
> > >>>
> > >>> 15. The KIP says "Remove deleted topics from replicas by sending
> > >>> StopReplicaRequest V2 for any topics which do not contain a topic ID,
> > and
> > >>> V3 for any topics which do contain a topic ID.". However, it seems
> the
> > >>> updated controller will create all missing topic IDs first before
> doing
> > >>> other actions. So, is StopReplicaRequest V2 needed?
> > >>>
> > >>> Jun
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:31 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Thanks, Justine!
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Your response seems compelling to me.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -John
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 10:17 -0700, Justine Olshan wrote:
> > >>> > > Hello all,
> > >>> > > Thanks for continuing the discussion! I have a few responses to
> > your
> > >>> > points.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Tom: You are correct in that this KIP has not mentioned the
> > >>> > > DeleteTopicsRequest. I think that this would be out of scope for
> > >>> now, but
> > >>> > > may be something worth adding in the future.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > John: We did consider sequence ids, but there are a few reasons
> to
> > >>> favor
> > >>> > > UUIDs. There are several cases where topics from different
> clusters
> > >>> may
> > >>> > > interact now and in the future. For example, Mirror Maker 2 may
> > >>> benefit
> > >>> > > from being able to detect when a cluster being mirrored is
> deleted
> > >>> and
> > >>> > > recreated and globally unique identifiers would make resolving
> > issues
> > >>> > > easier than sequence IDs which may collide between clusters.
> > KIP-405
> > >>> > > (tiered storage) will also benefit from globally unique IDs as
> > shared
> > >>> > > buckets may be used between clusters.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Globally unique IDs would also make functionality like moving
> > topics
> > >>> > > between disparate clusters easier in the future, simplify any
> > future
> > >>> > > implementations of backups and restores, and more. In general,
> > >>> unique IDs
> > >>> > > would ensure that the source cluster topics do not conflict with
> > the
> > >>> > > destination cluster topics.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > If we were to use sequence ids, we would need sufficiently large
> > >>> cluster
> > >>> > > ids to be stored with the topic identifiers or we run the risk of
> > >>> > > collisions. This will give up any advantage in compactness that
> > >>> sequence
> > >>> > > numbers may bring. Given these advantages I think it makes sense
> to
> > >>> use
> > >>> > > UUIDs.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Gokul: This is an interesting idea, but this is a breaking
> change.
> > >>> Out of
> > >>> > > scope for now, but maybe worth discussing in the future.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Hope this explains some of the decisions,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Justine
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gokul Ramanan Subramanian <
> > >>> > > gokul24...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > Hi.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Have you thought about whether it makes sense to support
> > >>> authorizing a
> > >>> > > > principal for a topic ID rather than a topic name to achieve
> > >>> tighter
> > >>> > > > security?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Or is the topic ID fundamentally an internal detail similar to
> > >>> epochs
> > >>> > used
> > >>> > > > in a bunch of other places in Kafka?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thanks.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:06 PM John Roesler <
> > vvcep...@apache.org>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > Hello Justine,
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Thanks for the KIP!
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > I happen to have been confronted recently with the need to
> keep
> > >>> > track of
> > >>> > > > a
> > >>> > > > > large number of topics as compactly as possible. I was going
> to
> > >>> come
> > >>> > up
> > >>> > > > > with some way to dictionary encode the topic names as
> integers,
> > >>> but
> > >>> > this
> > >>> > > > > seems much better!
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Apologies if this has been raised before, but I’m wondering
> > >>> about the
> > >>> > > > > choice of UUID vs sequence number for the ids. Typically,
> I’ve
> > >>> seen
> > >>> > UUIDs
> > >>> > > > > in two situations:
> > >>> > > > > 1. When processes need to generate non-colliding identifiers
> > >>> without
> > >>> > > > > coordination.
> > >>> > > > > 2. When the identifier needs to be “universally unique”;
> I.e.,
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > identifier needs to distinguish the entity from all other
> > >>> entities
> > >>> > that
> > >>> > > > > could ever exist. This is useful in cases where entities from
> > all
> > >>> > kinds
> > >>> > > > of
> > >>> > > > > systems get mixed together, such as when dumping logs from
> all
> > >>> > processes
> > >>> > > > in
> > >>> > > > > a company into a common system.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Maybe I’m being short-sighted, but it doesn’t seem like
> either
> > >>> really
> > >>> > > > > applies here. It seems like the brokers could and would
> achieve
> > >>> > consensus
> > >>> > > > > when creating a topic anyway, which is all that’s required to
> > >>> > generate
> > >>> > > > > non-colliding sequence ids. For the second, as you mention,
> we
> > >>> could
> > >>> > > > assign
> > >>> > > > > a UUID to the cluster as a whole, which would render any
> > resource
> > >>> > scoped
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > the broker universally unique as well.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > The reason I mention this is that, although a UUID is way
> more
> > >>> > compact
> > >>> > > > > than topic names, it’s still 16 bytes. In contrast, a 4-byte
> > >>> integer
> > >>> > > > > sequence id would give us 4 billion unique topics per
> cluster,
> > >>> which
> > >>> > > > seems
> > >>> > > > > like enough ;)
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Considering the number of different times these topic
> > >>> identifiers are
> > >>> > > > sent
> > >>> > > > > over the wire or stored in memory, it seems like it might be
> > >>> worth
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > > additional 4x space savings.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > What do you think about this?
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > Thanks,
> > >>> > > > > John
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, at 03:20, Tom Bentley wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > Hi Justine,
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > This looks like a very welcome improvement. Thanks!
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Maybe I missed it, but the KIP doesn't seem to mention
> > changing
> > >>> > > > > > DeleteTopicsRequest to identify the topic using an id.
> Maybe
> > >>> > that's out
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > > > scope, but DeleteTopicsRequest is not listed among the
> Future
> > >>> Work
> > >>> > APIs
> > >>> > > > > > either.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Tom
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:59 PM Satish Duggana <
> > >>> > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com
> > >>> > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > Thanks Lucas/Justine for the nice KIP.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > It has several benefits which also include simplifying
> the
> > >>> topic
> > >>> > > > > > > deletion process by controller and logs cleanup by
> brokers
> > in
> > >>> > corner
> > >>> > > > > > > cases.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > Best,
> > >>> > > > > > > Satish.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:07 PM Justine Olshan <
> > >>> > jols...@confluent.io
> > >>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > > Hello all, it's been almost a year! I've made some
> > changes
> > >>> to
> > >>> > this
> > >>> > > > > KIP
> > >>> > > > > > > and hope to continue the discussion.
> > >>> > > > > > > > One of the main changes I've added is now the metadata
> > >>> response
> > >>> > > > will
> > >>> > > > > > > include the topic ID (as Colin suggested). Clients can
> > >>> obtain the
> > >>> > > > > topicID
> > >>> > > > > > > of a given topic through a TopicDescription. The topicId
> > will
> > >>> > also be
> > >>> > > > > > > included with the UpdateMetadata request.
> > >>> > > > > > > > Let me know what you all think.
> > >>> > > > > > > > Thank you,
> > >>> > > > > > > > Justine
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > On 2019/09/13 16:38:26, "Colin McCabe" <
> > cmcc...@apache.org
> > >>> >
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi Lucas,
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks for tackling this. Topic IDs are a great
> idea,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > this
> > >>> > > > is
> > >>> > > > > a
> > >>> > > > > > > really good writeup.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > For /brokers/topics/[topic], the schema version
> should
> > be
> > >>> > bumped
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > > > version 3, rather than 2. KIP-455 bumped the version of
> > this
> > >>> > znode
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > 2
> > >>> > > > > > > already :)
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Given that we're going to be seeing these things as
> > >>> strings
> > >>> > as
> > >>> > > > lot
> > >>> > > > > (in
> > >>> > > > > > > logs, in ZooKeeper, on the command-line, etc.), does it
> > make
> > >>> > sense to
> > >>> > > > > use
> > >>> > > > > > > base64 when converting them to strings?
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Here is an example of the hex representation:
> > >>> > > > > > > > > 6fcb514b-b878-4c9d-95b7-8dc3a7ce6fd8
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > And here is an example in base64.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > b8tRS7h4TJ2Vt43Dp85v2A
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > The base64 version saves 15 letters (to be fair, 4 of
> > >>> those
> > >>> > were
> > >>> > > > > > > dashes that we could have elided in the hex
> > representation.)
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Another thing to consider is that we should specify
> > that
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > > > all-zeroes UUID is not a valid topic UUID. We can't use
> > >>> null
> > >>> > for
> > >>> > > > this
> > >>> > > > > > > because we can't pass a null UUID over the RPC protocol
> > >>> (there
> > >>> > is no
> > >>> > > > > > > special pattern for null, nor do we want to waste space
> > >>> reserving
> > >>> > > > such
> > >>> > > > > a
> > >>> > > > > > > pattern.)
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Maybe I missed it, but did you describe "migration
> > of...
> > >>> > existing
> > >>> > > > > > > topic[s] without topic IDs" in detail in any section? It
> > >>> seems
> > >>> > like
> > >>> > > > > when
> > >>> > > > > > > the new controller becomes active, it should just
> generate
> > >>> random
> > >>> > > > > UUIDs for
> > >>> > > > > > > these, and write the random UUIDs back to ZooKeeper. It
> > >>> would be
> > >>> > > > good
> > >>> > > > > to
> > >>> > > > > > > spell that out. We should make it clear that this
> happens
> > >>> > regardless
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > > > > the inter-broker protocol version (it's a compatible
> > change).
> > >>> > > > > > > > > "LeaderAndIsrRequests including an is_every_partition
> > >>> flag"
> > >>> > > > seems a
> > >>> > > > > > > bit wordy. Can we just call these "full
> > >>> LeaderAndIsrRequests"?
> > >>> > Then
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > RPC field could be named "full". Also, it would probably
> > be
> > >>> > better
> > >>> > > > > for the
> > >>> > > > > > > RPC field to be an enum of { UNSPECIFIED, INCREMENTAL,
> FULL
> > >>> }, so
> > >>> > > > that
> > >>> > > > > we
> > >>> > > > > > > can cleanly handle old versions (by treating them as
> > >>> UNSPECIFIED)
> > >>> > > > > > > > > In the LeaderAndIsrRequest section, you write "A
> final
> > >>> > deletion
> > >>> > > > > event
> > >>> > > > > > > will be secheduled for X ms after the LeaderAndIsrRequest
> > was
> > >>> > first
> > >>> > > > > > > received..." I guess the X was a placeholder that you
> > >>> intended
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > > replace
> > >>> > > > > > > before posting? :) In any case, this seems like the kind
> > of
> > >>> > thing
> > >>> > > > we'd
> > >>> > > > > > > want a configuration for. Let's describe that
> > configuration
> > >>> key
> > >>> > > > > somewhere
> > >>> > > > > > > in this KIP, including what its default value is.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > We should probably also log a bunch of messages at
> WARN
> > >>> level
> > >>> > > > when
> > >>> > > > > > > something is scheduled for deletion, as well. (Maybe
> this
> > >>> was
> > >>> > > > > assumed, but
> > >>> > > > > > > it would be good to mention it).
> > >>> > > > > > > > > I feel like there are a few sections that should be
> > >>> moved to
> > >>> > > > > "rejected
> > >>> > > > > > > alternatives." For example, in the DeleteTopics section,
> > >>> since
> > >>> > we're
> > >>> > > > > not
> > >>> > > > > > > going to do option 1 or 2, these should be moved into
> > >>> "rejected
> > >>> > > > > > > alternatives," rather than appearing inline. Another
> case
> > >>> is
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > > "Should
> > >>> > > > > > > we remove topic name from the protocol where possible"
> > >>> section.
> > >>> > This
> > >>> > > > > is
> > >>> > > > > > > clearly discussing a design alternative that we're not
> > >>> proposing
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > > > > implement: removing the topic name from those protocols.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Is it really necessary to have a new
> > >>> > /admin/delete_topics_by_id
> > >>> > > > > path
> > >>> > > > > > > in ZooKeeper? It seems like we don't really need this.
> > >>> Whenever
> > >>> > > > > there is
> > >>> > > > > > > a new controller, we'll send out full
> LeaderAndIsrRequests
> > >>> which
> > >>> > will
> > >>> > > > > > > trigger the stale topics to be cleaned up. The active
> > >>> > controller
> > >>> > > > will
> > >>> > > > > > > also send the full LeaderAndIsrRequest to brokers that
> are
> > >>> just
> > >>> > > > > starting
> > >>> > > > > > > up. So we don't really need this kind of two-phase
> > commit
> > >>> > (send
> > >>> > > > out
> > >>> > > > > > > StopReplicasRequest, get ACKs from all nodes, commit by
> > >>> removing
> > >>> > > > > > > /admin/delete_topics node) any more.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > You mention that FetchRequest will now include UUID
> to
> > >>> avoid
> > >>> > > > issues
> > >>> > > > > > > where requests are made to stale partitions. However,
> > >>> adding a
> > >>> > UUID
> > >>> > > > to
> > >>> > > > > > > MetadataRequest is listed as future work, out of scope
> for
> > >>> this
> > >>> > KIP.
> > >>> > > > > How
> > >>> > > > > > > will the client learn what the topic UUID is, if the
> > metadata
> > >>> > > > response
> > >>> > > > > > > doesn't include that information? It seems like adding
> the
> > >>> UUID
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > > > > MetadataResponse would be an improvement here that might
> > not
> > >>> be
> > >>> > too
> > >>> > > > > hard to
> > >>> > > > > > > make.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > best,
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Colin
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019, at 17:48, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Lucas, this would be great. I've run into issues
> with
> > >>> > topics
> > >>> > > > > being
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > resurrected accidentally, since a client cannot
> > easily
> > >>> > > > > distinguish
> > >>> > > > > > > between
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > a deleted topic and a new topic with the same name.
> > I'd
> > >>> > need
> > >>> > > > the
> > >>> > > > > ID
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > accessible from the client to solve that issue, but
> > >>> this
> > >>> > is a
> > >>> > > > > good
> > >>> > > > > > > first
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > step.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:41 PM Lucas Bradstreet <
> > >>> > > > > lu...@confluent.io>
> > >>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to kick off discussion of KIP-516,
> an
> > >>> > > > > implementation
> > >>> > > > > > > of topic
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > IDs for Kafka. Topic IDs aim to solve topic
> > >>> uniqueness
> > >>> > > > > problems in
> > >>> > > > > > > Kafka,
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > where referring to a topic by name alone is
> > >>> insufficient.
> > >>> > > > Such
> > >>> > > > > > > cases
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > include when a topic has been deleted and
> recreated
> > >>> with
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > > same
> > >>> > > > > > > name.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Unique identifiers will help simplify and improve
> > >>> Kafka's
> > >>> > > > topic
> > >>> > > > > > > deletion
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > process, as well as prevent cases where brokers
> may
> > >>> > > > incorrectly
> > >>> > > > > > > interact
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > with stale versions of topics.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-516%3A+Topic+Identifiers
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Lucas
> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
