Hi, Forgive me if this is already addressed; there's a lot of context here and I haven't read the entire thread. I think the section on Kafka Connect is a little thin at the moment.
1. The type and version of the connector is important information and it'd be nice if there were a way to include that. This could be done by embedding the relevant information inside the strings for the proposed properties; e.g., a client framework of "org.apache.kafka.connect+com.acme.FooConnector" and a version of "4.4.0+1.2.3" (where the Kafka Connect runtime version is first and the connector's version is second); however, that feels like a hack (a sentiment Andrew seems to share given this remark: "We could support concatenation of framework information, but that's just pandering to these people."). 2. Would users be allowed to override either the framework or version by explicitly setting values for them in a connector config, e.g., " producer.override.client.framework.name"? Cheers, Chris On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 5:33 PM Lianet Magrans <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, good that the concept was already considered. I will bring it up for > discussion soon with KIP-1324 then. > > Thanks! > Lianet > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026, 2:18 p.m. Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Lianet, > > Thanks for your response. > > > > I did discuss something similar with Matthias but decided that we weren't > > quite ready to commit to a specific behaviour in this KIP. I suggest that > > you include it in KIP-1324. There's a strong chance that KIPs 1313, 1368 > > and 1324 all land in the same 4.5 release, and that will mean the RPC > > changes can be coalesced into the same version bump. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On 2026/09/28 17:38:12 Lianet Magrans wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, just one question here, did we consider identifying not just > > the > > > framework type and version, but also the "framework instance"? Similar > to > > > what KIP-1313 did for clients (UUID for consumer/prodcuer/admin), but > > > closing the loop to have a way to identify instances of this new > "logical > > > client" which is the framework. > > > > > > That would be useful the moment we have several instances of the > > > "framework" running together I expect, e.g., several streams instances, > > > KIP-1313 would give us UUIDs for all the consumers/producer/admins > > running > > > underneath, and KIP-1368 tell us they are behind a "logical > > > client"/framework" ("streams"), but no way to tell here one of the > > > "streams" framwork instances from the other one. Streams already has a > > > process ID that fills that gap, the point to consider is if it's > > something > > > we would want along with the framework type. > > > > > > I'm thinking about this coming from KIP-1324 btw (pushing configs from > > the > > > client to the broker). For features like that, seems useful to identify > > not > > > only the framework type, but also the "framework instance". I'm happy > to > > > consider it as part of KIP-1324 (that I plan to resume soon), but > raising > > > it for consideration, as it's closely related to the framework type. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Lianet > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 2:45 PM Jun Rao via dev <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. LGTM > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 10:58 AM Andrew Schofield < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > JR7: Done. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/09/24 16:20:08 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR7. Piggybacking on the version bump in 4.5 sounds good to me. > > Could > > > > we > > > > > > document the version bump in the KIP? > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 7:32 AM Andrew Schofield < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR7: There is a tension here between bumping the version when > > adding > > > > > these > > > > > > > tagged fields because it is a new feature and not doing so > > because of > > > > > the > > > > > > > negotiation aspects of this. I believe that AK 4.5 will > > introduce a > > > > new > > > > > > > version of ApiVersions anyway because of KIP-1313, so the best > > path > > > > is > > > > > > > probably to piggyback the tagged field addition onto that new > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR8.1: I've added this constraint in AK 5.0 since we need a > major > > > > > version > > > > > > > to enforce this. In practice, nobody will be hit by this limit. > > > > > > > JR8.2: Yes, constraint added to the configs too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/09/24 00:08:16 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR7. Currently, we always bump the version when adding a > tagged > > > > > field. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > intention of this KIP is to add the two tagged fields > without a > > > > > version > > > > > > > > bump. This choice seems reasonable since it avoids an extra > > round > > > > of > > > > > > > > ApiVersionRequest version negotiation when 4.5 clients talk > to > > 4.4 > > > > > > > servers. It > > > > > > > > would be useful to be explicit document there is not version > > bump > > > > for > > > > > > > > ApiVersionRequest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR8. "The maximum length of the fields is 249 characters" > > > > > > > > JR8.1 Should the length constraint also apply to the existing > > > > fields > > > > > > > > ClientSoftwareName and ClientSoftwareVersion? > > > > > > > > JR8.2 Should we add a length constraint for the two new > client > > > > > > > > configurations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 6:42 AM Andrew Schofield < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR6: Yes, that works. I've added the methods to > > > > > ClientTelemetryContext. > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/09/21 17:54:38 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR6. It seems weird that the implementation of a KIP-714 > > plugin > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > > > casting an authorizableRequestContext to an internal > class > > > > > > > > > RequestContext. > > > > > > > > > > Would it be better to expose all client related resource > > labels > > > > > > > through a > > > > > > > > > > public API in ClientTelemetryContext? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 6:43 AM Andrew Schofield < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR4: Done. Producer, consumer and admin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR5: Yes. I've reworded slightly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR6: I think the plugin implementation already needs to > > do > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > similar to get to software name/version. > > > > > > > > > > > ClientTelemetryContext.authorizableRequestContext() > > returns > > > > an > > > > > > > > > instance of > > > > > > > > > > > AuthorizableRequestContext. The > > > > > > > o.a.k.common.requests.RequestContext > > > > > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > > > implements that interface, and it also lets you get to > > > > > > > > > ClientInformation > > > > > > > > > > > and that's where you can find the software name/version > > and > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > > name/version. You can see this in > > > > > > > > > > > o.a.k.server.metrics.ClientMetricsInstanceMetadata. I > > would > > > > > > > describe > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > as grubby :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way forward here would be to remove the > broker-added > > > > > resource > > > > > > > > > labels > > > > > > > > > > > from KIP-1368, but leave the additions to the match > > criteria. > > > > > Then > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > still be possible to specify, for example, that > > particular > > > > > metrics > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > be captured for Kafka Streams clients only, without > > adding to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > grubbiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/09/15 20:44:06 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR4. "The configuration keys are defined in > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.clients.CommonClientConfigs" > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you explicitly list the clients (producer, > > consumer, > > > > > > > > > AdminClient, > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.) that define the two new configs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR5. Should AK frameworks such as kstream and connect > > set > > > > > > > > > > > > client.framework.name and client.framework.version > in > > > > their > > > > > > > clients > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR6. "Broker-added resources labels for client > metrics" > > > > > > > > > > > > Are the new labels added in > > > > > > > > > DefaultClientTelemetryContext.RequestContext? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since ClientTelemetryExporter.exportMetrics() only > > takes > > > > > > > > > > > > ClientTelemetryContext, does the implementor need to > > cast > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > to DefaultClientTelemetryContext to retrieve the new > > > > labels? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:48 PM Andrew Schofield < > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1: I dug into the KIP-714 client metrics stuff a > > bit > > > > more > > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > revised the KIP. I have added client-framework-name > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > client-framework-version to the set of keys in the > > > > > matching for > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > metrics, and also added these broker-added metrics > > tags. > > > > > This > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > pieces of information would have been incorporated > > into > > > > > > > KIP_714 had > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > been part of Kafka at that point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/08/04 20:29:19 Andrew Schofield wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1: My intent here is only request logging. It > > would > > > > be > > > > > > > > > possible to > > > > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > > > > client-framework-name and client-framework-version > > to the > > > > > match > > > > > > > > > > > criteria > > > > > > > > > > > > > for client metrics, which could conceivably permit > > > > > scenarios > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > capturing metrics from specific versions of the > > Spring > > > > > > > framework. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > beyond the scope I have in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR3: Thanks for clarifying the tagged field > > > > conventions. > > > > > > > Version > > > > > > > > > bump > > > > > > > > > > > > > reverted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/08/04 18:38:40 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1. ClientSoftwareName and > > ClientSoftwareVersion are > > > > > used > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > metric > > > > > > > > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and match predicates for configuring client > > metrics. > > > > > Are > > > > > > > > > > > > > ClientFrameworkName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and ClientFrameworkVersion used in those places > > too > > > > or > > > > > are > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in request logging? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR3. The general rule for adding a new field in > > RPC > > > > is > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > (1) if > > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truly optional, we add it as a tagged field > with > > no > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > bump; > > > > > > > > > > > (2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise, we add it as a non-tagged field > with a > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > bump. One > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception is when adding a non-optional field > in > > the > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > > header. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because of the limitation in existing > > implementation, > > > > > we > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > > > > it as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a tagged field with a version bump. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 6:04 AM Andrew > Schofield < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1: I've expanded the motivation section in > > the > > > > KIP. > > > > > > > They > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > truly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optional, I feel. When diagnosing an issue > > using > > > > the > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > logs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this information can illuminate why the > > application > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > behaving > > > > > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular way. If the application is using a > > > > > framework, > > > > > > > > > > > behaviours > > > > > > > > > > > > > such as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > retries will typically not be in the > > application > > > > code > > > > > > > itself > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they're implemented in the framework. > There's a > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > what the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > application developer thinks their code does > > and > > > > > what we > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > logs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR2: Done. They're Type.STRING, default > null. I > > > > think > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > importance LOW because that affects the > > prominence > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > configs in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but I wonder whether you > agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/08/03 21:39:06 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR1. Could you describe the use cases of > the > > two > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > configs > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > are they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truly optional? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR2. Could you add the type and the default > > value > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 10:23 AM Matthias > J. > > Sax > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP Andrew. I think it > will > > be > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > useful if > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify frameworks, especially our own > > ones > > > > > > > (Connect and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Streams). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Aditya's point: I am wondering > where > > to > > > > > draw > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > line. > > > > > > > > > > > Many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > examples seems to be metadata that > belongs > > into > > > > > he > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Headers` at the application level, > rather > > than > > > > > the > > > > > > > lower > > > > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > headers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There if of course no strict logical > > dividing > > > > > line > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > both. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, the broker does not access > application > > > > level > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Headers`. But if it would be useful to > > let the > > > > > > > broker > > > > > > > > > tap > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > application level record `Headers` we > > should > > > > > tackle > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > independently? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I don't think it would be the > > right > > > > > > > design to > > > > > > > > > > > push > > > > > > > > > > > > > too many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thing into the lower level request > > headers. So > > > > I > > > > > am > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > favor > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added the two new propose > > `ClientFrameworkName` > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `ClientFrameworkVersion` fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/31/26 7:56 AM, Federico Valeri > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes look good. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:17 AM Andrew > > > > > Schofield < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Fede, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for your response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> FV1: They are set using the regular > > config > > > > > > > properties. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible for an end user to set arbitrary > > > > > values, but > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be true of a builder or internal > > constructor. > > > > > I've > > > > > > > added > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information in the KIP and beefed up the > > config > > > > > > > > > descriptions > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discourage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > application use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> FV2: I've never encountered such > > nightmares > > > > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets the config last would win. Maybe > this > > is a > > > > > > > > > motivation > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > having a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > programmatic way of setting the > > information. We > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concatenation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of framework information, but that's just > > > > > pandering > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I've also updated the KIP with a > maximum > > > > > length > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > pieces of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information since all identifiers should > > have > > > > > defined > > > > > > > > > bounds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 2026/07/31 08:50:11 Federico Valeri > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Andrew, the motivation looks > good. A > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FV1: The KIP says frameworks should > set > > > > them, > > > > > > > but it > > > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specify > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the mechanism. If these are ordinary > > > > > user-facing > > > > > > > > > configs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> prevents an end user from setting > > arbitrary > > > > > > > values, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > defeats > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> purpose. Should the framework set > them > > > > > > > > > programmatically > > > > > > > > > > > > > (builder or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> internal constructor) or is user > > > > override > > > > > > > > > intentional? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FV2: What if we have multiple layers > of > > > > > > > frameworks? > > > > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > > > > > > say a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > custom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> framework on top of SpringBoot. I've > > seen > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > > > nightmares > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fede > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 8:27 AM > Aditya > > > > > Kousik < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We’re definitely agreed on the > > increased > > > > > use of > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks > > > > > > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the client directly. I’ve cited the > > different > > > > > > > patterns > > > > > > > > > > > Spring, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Micronaut, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smallrye and company-internal frameworks > > have > > > > > APIs > > > > > > > built > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > top > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka client, in a couple of KIPs > already. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> The project has enough traction > that I > > > > > think of > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client with distributed log semantics for > > which > > > > > > > > > frameworks > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > written, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much like gRPC over netty. People want to > > just > > > > > write > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > business > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leave the plumbing and threading to the > > > > > frameworks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> All of this to say, I’m fine to ship > > the > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identifying parameter for frameworks to > > set. It > > > > > will > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > mighty > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> My addendum, rather than a pushback > is > > > > that: > > > > > > > guilty > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > charged, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driven by the otel/DD > > telemetry/observability > > > > of > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > applications. The > client.framework.version > > > > > config for > > > > > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to detect regressions and isolate root > > causes. > > > > > But I > > > > > > > > > feel it > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many such facets. You mentioned that you > > would > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > client.id > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clientInstanceId to identify a client but > > that > > > > > these > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aggregate/fleet-wide issues. As an > > example, if > > > > I > > > > > tag > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > app’s AZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help me write alerts on spike in latency > in > > > > > > > us-west-2. > > > > > > > > > Or, > > > > > > > > > > > > > detect stuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > partitions across multiple > > > > > > > client.id/application.names > > > > > > > > > none > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > whom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > share > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same client.framework.name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Other tags that come to mind: > > > > > application.name, > > > > > > > az, > > > > > > > > > > > team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > env, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All fields users usually hijack > client.id > > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> An otel JavaAgent can capture the > > client > > > > > > > metadata > > > > > > > > > > > > > registered and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attach it as tags with each resource > span. > > > > Users > > > > > who > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rely on datadog/otel will get visibility > > into > > > > the > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > metadata for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> The KIP as I read it, serves as a > > > > > foundation for > > > > > > > > > future > > > > > > > > > > > > > use. So I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don’t want to shoehorn a new behaviour if > > it > > > > > > > explodes the > > > > > > > > > > > scope > > > > > > > > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Aditya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jul 27, 2026, at 13:52, Andrew > > > > > Schofield < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Aditya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for your response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AK1: I chose framework as the > blessed > > > > > > > abstraction > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was problem determination for client > > > > > applications. We > > > > > > > > > often > > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with client problems have not coded > > directly to > > > > > the > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because they are using a framework. As a > > > > result, > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > application code is one level removed > from > > the > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > client. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frameworks can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override configuration defaults, > introduce > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > retry > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on. Lots of companies have their own > > internal > > > > > > > > > frameworks, so > > > > > > > > > > > > > this KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be used by them too. I'm trying to make > it > > > > > easier to > > > > > > > > > work out > > > > > > > > > > > > > when a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is making use of a framework and knowing > > what > > > > it > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Sometimes, particularly for > non-Java > > > > > clients, > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overridden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ClientSoftwareName/Version > themselves, > > > > which > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less useful than they should be. By > > providing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ClientFrameworkName/Version, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is no longer any need to do so. > > That's > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > > motivation > > > > > > > > > > > > > here, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though KIPs don't concern themselves with > > > > > non-Java > > > > > > > > > clients as > > > > > > > > > > > > > such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We could go for a more flexible > > key-value > > > > > > > approach, > > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name and version is sufficient for what I > > had > > > > in > > > > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > Feel > > > > > > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > push > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > back with additional justification and > > > > examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AK2: Done. > > > > > o.a.k.clients.CommonClientConfigs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AK3: To identify a particular > > client, I > > > > > would > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > ID and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client-instance ID. I think these are > > generally > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the framework name and version which are > > extra > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to figure out why a client is not > > > > > behaving as > > > > > > > > > > > expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> AK4: I'm sure you have more > > experience of > > > > > > > > > OTel/DataDog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > collectors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may well be correct that they would > be > > > > > helpful > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > collectors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2026/07/26 07:48:20 Aditya > Kousik > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I’m reminded of the client.id > > > > discussion > > > > > we > > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-1313 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re: client instance id. After that > > discussion, > > > > I > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > WIP > > > > > > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foundation for shipping client metadata > > tags to > > > > > be > > > > > > > sent > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > telemetry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was hoping we could discuss if part of > that > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > fit > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> AK1. I had a note on the > motivation > > of > > > > > > > selecting a > > > > > > > > > > > > > “framework” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blessed abstraction. The KIP mentions > it’s > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > metadata and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier problem diagnosis. This is akin to > > an > > > > > > > > > “application id” > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-framework clients usually tag with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> KIP-606 took an approach like > > > > > > > > > > > > > metrics.context.<key>=<val>. If we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allow client.metadata.<key>=<val>, then a > > > > > > > > > > > framework/application > > > > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version can sit in such a metadata > context > > and > > > > be > > > > > > > sent > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > ApiVersion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RPC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, this is an open box approach > > rather > > > > > than > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name/version (just two fields) we’re > > adding to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > But > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > curious about the tier of importance of > > > > framework > > > > > > > alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> AK2. Can you clarify if this > config > > goes > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CommonClientConfigs.java, referenced > across > > > > > > > > > > > > > producer/consumer/share > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc? I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know some share props have the “share.” > > prefix > > > > > going. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> AK3. In another thread you > mentioned > > > > that > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > broker > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > add it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the request context. In client logs, > > clientId > > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > string > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify WARN logs when things go > sideways > > like > > > > > > > broker > > > > > > > > > > > > > disconnected, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rebalance in progress etc. Can you cherry > > pick > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > highlight > > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > log places that these strings can go? I > > suppose > > > > > > > adding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clientId/framework > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the MDC context might be too > voluminous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> AK4. I foresee collectors like > > > > > Datadog/OTel > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tags > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful in each span exported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Looking forward to your thoughts > on > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Aditya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2026, at 11:53, > Andrew > > > > > Schofield > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd like to open discussion on > > > > KIP-1368: > > > > > > > Client > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Applications often use > application > > > > > frameworks > > > > > > > > > such as > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connect to Kafka. To assist with problem > > > > > diagnosis, > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduces a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way to provide the framework name and > > version > > > > as > > > > > > > part of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > metadata > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client sends to the broker when it > > connects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Here's the KIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/J4Q_Gg__;!!Ayb5sqE7!vs-_AkY76KFOqYK02q4f2tKSkFdnly7eklb5qfewIk841seg2S5cIOXxFhnAixEYsDVuFQyJx8-D5g$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
