Hi Ritika, Thanks for the KIP.
DJ1: What's the reason for using a tagged field? We usually bump the API version unless there is a good reason not to. This is also backward-compatible. DJ2: In the rejected alternative, could you mention why it is not possible to rely on the local `transaction.version` feature flag? Best, David On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 9:47 AM Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ritika, > Thanks for the KIP. I have one question. > > AS1: Does the new WriteTxnMarkers V1 request introduce support for > TV == 2 or TV >= 2? I only ask because the pseudo-code is quite loose > in the checking logic. I would have thought that V1 specifically introduces > TV == 2 and it would take another version bump for this RPC to support > higher transaction versions. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 15 Oct 2025, at 02:28, Artem Livshits <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Ritika, > > > > Thanks for the KIP! The proposal makes sense to me. > > > > I have one clarification question, in the rejected alternatives the first > > alternative says "However, its state is cleared after the first control > > record is written". Is this the control record or the first batch? > > > > -Artem > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:39 AM Ritika Reddy > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> I would like to start a discussion thread for KIP-1228. It's a > relatively > >> simple change and would really help strengthen EOS guarantees in Kafka. > >> KIP Link - > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1228%3A+Add+Transaction+Version+to+WriteTxnMarkersRequest > >> JIRA - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19446 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ritika > >> > >
