Hi Lianet, Thanks for your response. LM3: I'm opposed to arbitrary concatenation because it makes it impossible to do sensible matching and the like. If we did the following, that would be fine:
* Kafka Connect uses org.apache.kafka.connect+your.connector.class.name.here for framework name, and x.y.z+a.b.c for framework version. * Explicitly prevent overriding of these configs by the connectors. Kafka Connect owns the configs, not the connectors. Then we get flexibility and sanity together. Maybe that's the best way forward. I'll see whether consensus emerges before updating the KIP. Thanks, Andrew On 2026/09/29 19:06:48 Lianet Magrans wrote: > One more detail (again related to Chris' comment): > > LM3: if we want to leave the door open for concatenations, we relax > the validations to allow + (Chris used the connect example "client > framework of > "org.apache.kafka.connect+com.acme.FooConnector" and a version of > "4.4.0+1.2.3"), but something like that wouldn't be allowed with the > current regex. > > Thanks, > Lianet > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:50 PM Lianet Magrans <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > LM1: Just checking that it's intentional that the new methods added to > > the ClientTelemetryContext interface have no default implementation? > > It will break implementations but I guess we're relying on the fact > > that implementations live in the broker itself? > > > > LM2: related to Chris' comments and the overrides, if we have an app > > setting the config and the framwork setting it internally too, seems > > we're saying the user config wins? > > > > Thanks! > > Lianet > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > Thanks for your message. > > > > > > 1. I don't want to pander to people who want to concatenate identifiers. > > > We could have ConnectorName and ConnectorVersion fields along the same > > > lines as the SoftwareFrameworkName and SoftwareFrameworkVersion. That > > > would be a cleaner way of doing it. Maybe we can come up with a concrete > > > proposal easily, but the risk is that we end up adding a heap of other > > > Connect concepts too and that's way beyond the original intent of the KIP. > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > 2. There is nothing to prevent a connector config overriding these > > > configs. Do you think this is something thet should be prevented to > > > dissuade the kind of shenanigans that you illustrated with concatenation? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > > > > On 2026/09/28 21:57:43 Chris Egerton wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
