Hi, Kevin, Thanks for the reply.
JR4. Your explanation makes sense. Perhaps we could add another user experience: "Remove a KRaft voter in a dynamic quorum and keep it registered as an observer controller". In this case, the user will run `kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller` without the `--unregister` flag. Jun On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 4:59 PM Kevin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > Thanks for the reply. > > RE JR4: To me, the main motivation for having an explicit `--unregister` > flag is that `remove-controller` and `unregister-controller` assume two > different things about the supplied node. For removing a node from the > KRaft voter set, no assumption is made about whether the node is running > anymore -- Kafka supports either case. However, the act of unregistering a > controller requires assuming that the node will "not be around soon." This > is because subsequent feature upgrades will no longer consider the > supported levels of an unregistered controller. > > An operator may decide to keep a node around as an observer, possibly with > the intention to make it a voter in the future. Making the unregistration > always occur alongside voter removal would make the observer controller in > the example above unregister and then re-register because the node is still > around. This allows for the feature upgrade race I mentioned previously > (i.e. controller unregisters, operator upgrades a feature that should not > be supported, controller re-registers). Therefore, I think we should have > an explicit `--unregister` flag for `remove-controller` since the > assumptions around the state of the cluster change compared to the base > command. What do you think? > > RE JR5: Yeah, I believe so. Thanks for catching this case. One could > specify controller.quorum.bootstrap.servers instead of > controller.quorum.voters on a controller in a static quorum. This would be > a valid static config that passes the check in > > `KafkaConfig#validateControllerQuorumVotersMustContainNodeIdForKRaftController`. > I have updated the KIP with these changes. > > RE JR6: Yes, it should say "every Kafka node." I have updated the KIP to > fix this. > > Best, > Kevin Wu > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 6:12 PM Jun Rao via dev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, Kevin, > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > JR4. Is there a use case for `kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller` > > without the `--unregister` flag? If not, could we remove the --unregister > > flag? > > > > JR5. For the second user experience "Unregister an observer controller > in a > > dynamic quorum", one can have and remove an observer controller in the > > static quorum too, right? > > > > JR6. "Ensure the stopped voter is not part of controller.quorum.voters on > > any other Kafka nodes" > > "any other Kafka nodes" should be "every Kafka node", right? > > > > Jun > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 1:33 PM Kevin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > I have updated the KIP to make a separate section detailing the user > > > experience. > > > > > > Best, > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 12:05 PM Jun Rao via dev <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Kevin, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > It would be useful to have a separate user experience section that > > > > documents the steps for common scenarios involving the tools. > > > > > > > > The scenarios are: > > > > 1. Remove a voter in dynamic KRaft quorum > > > > stop the voter > > > > run kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller with --unregister > > > > 2. Unregister an observer controller > > > > stop the observer > > > > run kafka-cluster unregister-controller > > > > 3. Unregister a voter in a static KRaft quorum when the static voter > > set > > > is > > > > mistakenly configured. > > > > stop the voter > > > > run kafka-cluster unregister-controller > > > > remove voter from controller.quorum.voters ? > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:49 AM Kevin Wu <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the discussion. > > > > > Yeah, those are the scenarios for using these tools. I have > > documented > > > > > their usage in the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:51 AM Jun Rao via dev < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kevin, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your suggestion sounds good to me. It would be useful to document > > the > > > > > usage > > > > > > of those tools. The scenarios are: > > > > > > 1. Remove a voter in dynamic KRaft quorum > > > > > > 2. Unregister an observer controller > > > > > > 3. Unregister a voter in a static KRaft quorum when the static > > voter > > > > set > > > > > is > > > > > > mistakenly configured. > > > > > > > > > > > > For item 3, could you document how it works? Does one need to > stop > > > the > > > > > > misconfigured voter first and then unregister it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other scenarios? > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 8:22 AM Kevin Wu <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the replies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR3: I would like the design of this feature to not > introduce > > > more > > > > > > > coupling of the KRaft and metadata layers. Observer controllers > > are > > > > > > > supported, but they are a KRaft concept, so it should not be > > known > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > metadata layer whether or not a given controller is a voter or > > > > > observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about the following documentation and > execution > > > > > pattern > > > > > > > regarding these CLI commands? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kafka-cluster unregister-controller` is a command for users > when > > > > they > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to unregister a controller from the cluster. We can document > that > > > > this > > > > > is > > > > > > > potentially unsafe and should only be done if the operator does > > not > > > > > > intend > > > > > > > to bring back up that controller. `kafka-cluster > > > > unregister-controller` > > > > > > > works irrespective of the quorum mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Going forward, running `kafka-metadata-quorum > remove-controller` > > > > > removes > > > > > > a > > > > > > > controller as a KRaft voter, and continues to only be supported > > in > > > a > > > > > > > dynamic quorum cluster. I still think the unregistering > behavior > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > an additional flag, because having an observer controller that > is > > > > still > > > > > > > registered to the cluster is a valid configuration in Kafka. I > > > think > > > > of > > > > > > > `kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller --unregister` as a > > > > "built-in" > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > script, since removing a voter and unregistering it from the > > > cluster > > > > is > > > > > > > probably a very common usage pattern. This command will only > send > > > > > > > UnregisterController RPC if the cluster supports dynamic > quorum, > > so > > > > the > > > > > > > overall command behavior is consistent with how it is today > with > > > > > respect > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the kraft.version level of the cluster. If the cluster does not > > > > support > > > > > > > dynamic quorum, the CLI can direct the user to instead run the > > > > > > > `kafka-cluster unregister-controller` command. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 5:39 PM Jun Rao via dev < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kevin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR2. Good point on auto-join. I think we can introduce the > > > > > > > > new UnregisterControllerRequest and keep the auto-join > behavior > > > as > > > > is > > > > > > > > (i.e., without unregistering the controller when removing the > > old > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > from the voter). The command "kafka-metadata-quorum > > > > > remove-controller" > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > send two separate RPC requests, RemoveRaftVoterRequest and > > > > > > > > UnregisterControllerRequest as documented in the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR3. When will a user use the command "kafka-cluster > > > > > > > > unregister-controller"? Is this only for unregistering an > > > observer > > > > > > > > controller? If the observer controller is currently > supported, > > we > > > > can > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > that command. It would be useful to document the usage for > both > > > > > > commands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:25 AM Kevin Wu < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR1: Yeah, I will update KIP to touch on this static > > quorum > > > > edge > > > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR2: That seems reasonable to me, since we would avoid > two > > > RPC > > > > > > hops > > > > > > > > (one > > > > > > > > > for RemoveVoter, one for UnregisterController). One thing > to > > > note > > > > > is > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > with KIP-1186 > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1186*3A*Update*AddRaftVoterRequest*RPC*to*support*auto-join__;JSsrKysrKw!!Ayb5sqE7!phwOrPrBZoQb1P44rCfpPBt74v80NjCTOGhgaRQx1XFXCy1x61QR9b9xw3zfvo-aFvVsFYczOxbTVtGeJkFHCg$ > > > > > > > > > >, > > > > > > > > > besides operators manually removing controllers, observer > > > > > controllers > > > > > > > > > themselves can send `RemoveRaftVoter` to remove their old > > > > > > incarnations > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the voter set as part of the auto-join feature. With > > auto-join > > > > and > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > proposed behavior, explicitly removing a controller's old > > > > > > registration > > > > > > > > > alongside its old voter set entry can lead to "unsupported" > > > > > upgrades > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > cluster. An operator doing these steps manually can be > argued > > > as > > > > > > > > > misconfiguring the cluster, but the auto-join feature > > allowing > > > > for > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > scenario seems like a bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the below example with auto-join enabled: 3 > > > controllers > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > voter set (A,B,C) where A supports feature levels X=[0-1], > B > > > > > supports > > > > > > > > > feature levels X=[0-1], but C only supports X=0. Currently, > > > node > > > > A > > > > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > active controller, all 3 controllers are registered, but > > > > upgrading > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > X to feature level 1 is not supported because C does not > > > support > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > Controller C restarts with a new disk (now represented as > > C'). > > > > The > > > > > > > > > auto-join code runs to first remove C from the voter set, > and > > > > then > > > > > > > remove > > > > > > > > > the registration for C. These records are committed via > > nodes A > > > > and > > > > > > B. > > > > > > > > Now, > > > > > > > > > from the active controller's perspective, the cluster does > > > > support > > > > > > > > > upgrading feature X to level 1. There is a race between C' > > > adding > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > > > back to the KRaft voter set and re-registering itself, and > a > > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > > feature level upgrade. Another interesting thing to note > > after > > > > > > looking > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > the code is that controllers can register even if they do > not > > > > > support > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > finalized features of the cluster, which is different from > > > broker > > > > > > > > > registration. In Kafka's current code, the original > > > registration > > > > > for > > > > > > C > > > > > > > > > stays in the log after C is removed as a voter by > auto-join, > > > > which > > > > > > > > prevents > > > > > > > > > an upgrade of feature X. At some point, the registration > for > > C > > > is > > > > > > > updated > > > > > > > > > by C' because C' is a different process incarnation, but a > > > > > > registration > > > > > > > > > that blocks X's upgrade is always in the log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Kafka should not unregister a controller when > > > > auto-join > > > > > > > > removes > > > > > > > > > a controller from the voter set. This means including a new > > RPC > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > `RemoveRaftVoter` that introduces a boolean field telling > the > > > > > active > > > > > > > > > controller whether to also unregister the controller. This > > > field > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > completely ignored by the raft layer, and instead would be > > > > handled > > > > > at > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > ControllerApis level. I think it is fine to unregister a > > > > controller > > > > > > > > > whenever the operator runs `kafka-metadata-quorum > > > > > remove-controller` > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > smooth UX with dynamic quorum. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR3: Maybe we can document this better as part of the > code > > > > > changes > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > this KIP, but in my opinion, the kafka-cluster tool deals > > with > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > membership (brokers and controllers), which is a metadata > > layer > > > > > > > concept. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you look at the `list-endpoints` command, you can list out > > the > > > > > > > registered > > > > > > > > > controller endpoints. Alternatively, the > > kafka-metadata-quorum > > > > tool > > > > > > > deals > > > > > > > > > with KRaft, which knows about concepts like leader, voter, > > and > > > > > > > observers. > > > > > > > > > The `add-controller` and `remove-controller` sub-commands > > > > > > inadvertently > > > > > > > > > deal with controllers (since controllers can be voters), > but > > > the > > > > > > > > `describe` > > > > > > > > > sub-command tree also shows information about brokers, > which > > > are > > > > > > > > observers > > > > > > > > > to KRaft. My decision to include the > `unregister-controller` > > > > > command > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > `kafka-cluster` tool is mainly motivated by this > distinction. > > > > > > > > Additionally, > > > > > > > > > if we only send `RemoveVoterRequest` in > `remove-controller`, > > it > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > hacky > > > > > > > > > to direct users to use that command for unregistering any > > > > > controller, > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > for observers, the remove voter logic of that request will > > > always > > > > > > fail > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the raft layer. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 8:17 AM Paolo Patierno < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > From reading it, it's not clear because not explicit, > but I > > > > would > > > > > > > > assume > > > > > > > > > > you are going to expose a new unregisterController method > > > > through > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > AdminClient API as well, is my assumption right? > > > > > > > > > > I expect it would be used underneath by the tools you are > > > going > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > modify. > > > > > > > > > > Having such support within the AdminClient API is > important > > > > when > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > operator is not a human to run the tool but a Kubernetes > > > > operator > > > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > > > > > > Strimzi) with the need to unregister a controller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Paolo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 21:57, Kevin Wu < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR1: I would say the main use case is dynamic > quorums, > > > > since > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > > > of the observer controller becomes a thing in that > world. > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > a static quorum edge case if the operator misconfigures > > > > > > > > > > > `controller.quorum.voters`. If a new controller voter > > > > > mistakenly > > > > > > > > joins > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > cluster, it will also persist a registration record. In > > my > > > > > > opinion, > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > should be a way to remove a controller registration via > > > > > > AdminClient > > > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > all quorum modes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR2: Yes, the existing command only removes the > voter, > > > but > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > unregister the controller. I left it as a separate flag > > for > > > > now > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > they are "separate" operations in that being a raft > voter > > > is > > > > a > > > > > > > subset > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > being a controller in dynamic quorums, but I am not > > opposed > > > > to > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > command try to do both (remove voter and unregister the > > > > > > controller) > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > default. In my opinion, an observer controller is > > "useless" > > > > in > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > > not participate in the leader election or replication > > parts > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > KRaft > > > > > > > > > > > protocol, so I see no issue with doing both operations > > > > always. > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > operator may want observer controllers around for other > > > > reasons > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > redundancy. Do you (or others) have any insight into > how > > > > users > > > > > > may > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > configuring clusters with observer controllers? If > not, I > > > > think > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > okay > > > > > > > > > > > to remove the flag and make it the default behavior of > > > > > > > > > > > `kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR3: Not exactly. The `kafka-metadata-quorum > > > > > remove-controller > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > --unregister` sends 2 RPCs to the active controller, > one > > to > > > > > > remove > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > > > from the voter set, and another to unregister the node. > > The > > > > > > > > > > `kafka-cluster > > > > > > > > > > > unregister-controller` command just sends 1 RPC to the > > > active > > > > > > > > > controller > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > unregister the node. My motivation for having two > > separate > > > > > > commands > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > because `remove-controller` is associated with dynamic > > > > quorum, > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > `RemoveRaftVoterRPC` will fail if the kraft.version=0. > > What > > > > do > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR4: I have updated the sections for the CLI > commands > > in > > > > the > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > > this information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RE JR5: This is describing the current implementation > of > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > ControllerRegistrationManager, which will listen to the > > > > > metadata > > > > > > > log > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > send ControllerRegistrationRequest when the local node > id > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > registered > > > > > > > > > > > in the log. It looks like this is slightly different > from > > > how > > > > > we > > > > > > > > handle > > > > > > > > > > > broker registration in BrokerLifecycleManager. > Currently, > > > > this > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > path > > > > > > > > > > > never executes because controller registrations cannot > be > > > > > > removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 2:08 PM Jun Rao via dev < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kevin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1. I guess this is only intended for dynamic KRaft > > > > quorums? > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > so, > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > would be useful to clarify that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR2. kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller > > > > --controller-id > > > > > > 9990 > > > > > > > > > > > > --controller-directory-id EXAMPLE_UUID --unregister > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the existing remove-controller logic only changes > > the > > > > > voter > > > > > > > > set, > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't unregister the controller? Should we just > > always > > > do > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > > together? Is there a use case for only removing a > > > > controller > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > voter > > > > > > > > > > > > set, but not unregsitering? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR3. Is kafka-cluster unregister-controller > equivalent > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > kafka-metadata-quorum remove-controller > --controller-id > > > > 9990 > > > > > > > > > > > > --controller-directory-id EXAMPLE_UUID --unregister? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR4. Could you describe the underlying workflow for > > each > > > > new > > > > > > > > command > > > > > > > > > > > (RPCs > > > > > > > > > > > > sent, metadata records generated, actions taken by > the > > > > > > > controller, > > > > > > > > > > etc)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR5. "The registration manager of an unregistered > > > > controller > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > attempts to re-register with the active controller. > > This > > > is > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > prevent > > > > > > > > > > > > accidental unregistrations." > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't quite understand this. Why will an > unregistered > > > > > > > controller > > > > > > > > > > > attempt > > > > > > > > > > > > to re-register? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 11:31 AM Kevin Wu < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1312: > > Support > > > > > > > > > unregistering > > > > > > > > > > > > > controllers. Below is the KIP link. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1312*3A*Support*unregistering*controllers__;JSsrKw!!Ayb5sqE7!phwOrPrBZoQb1P44rCfpPBt74v80NjCTOGhgaRQx1XFXCy1x61QR9b9xw3zfvo-aFvVsFYczOxbTVtFeUg-7gg$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kevin Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Paolo Patierno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Senior Principal Software Engineer @ IBM**CNCF > Ambassador* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/ppatierno__;!!Ayb5sqE7!phwOrPrBZoQb1P44rCfpPBt74v80NjCTOGhgaRQx1XFXCy1x61QR9b9xw3zfvo-aFvVsFYczOxbTVtHGG-mS-Q$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno__;!!Ayb5sqE7!phwOrPrBZoQb1P44rCfpPBt74v80NjCTOGhgaRQx1XFXCy1x61QR9b9xw3zfvo-aFvVsFYczOxbTVtFcWWCD5g$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub : ppatierno < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ppatierno__;!!Ayb5sqE7!phwOrPrBZoQb1P44rCfpPBt74v80NjCTOGhgaRQx1XFXCy1x61QR9b9xw3zfvo-aFvVsFYczOxbTVtEK-wncPw$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
