I think it will be a good idea. +1 Thanks,
Mayuresh On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com> wrote: > +1 Mayuresh, I think this is a good solution/strategy. > > Shall we update the KIP with this? Becket/Jun/Joel any comments to add > before we do? > > On 08/11/2016, 17:29, "Mayuresh Gharat" <gharatmayures...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think the migration can be done in 2 stages : > > 1) In first stage the broker should understand the attribute flag as > well > as Null for the value for log compaction. > 2) In second stage we move on to supporting only the attribute flag > for log > compaction. > > I agree with Becket that for older clients (consumers) the broker might > have to down convert a message that has the attribute flag set for log > compacting but has a non null value. But this should be in first stage. > Once all the clients have upgraded (clients start recognizing the > attribute > flag), we can move the broker to stage 2. > > Thanks, > > Mayuresh > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com > > > wrote: > > > Also we can add further guidance: > > > > To avoid the below caveat to organisations by promoting of > upgrading all > > consumers first before relying on producing tombstone messages with > data > > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone > > ________________________________________ > > From: Michael Pearce > > Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:03:32 AM > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag > > > > Thanks Jun on the feedback, I think I understand the issue/point now. > > > > We def can add that on older client version if tombstone marker make > the > > value null to preserve behaviour. > > > > There is one caveats to this: > > > > * we have to be clear that data is lost if reading via old > client/message > > format - I don't think this is a big issue as mostly the idea/use > case is > > around meta data transport as such would only be as bad as current > situation > > > > Re having configurable broker this was to handle cases like you > described > > but in another way by allowing organisation choose the behaviour of > the > > compaction per broker or per topic so they could manage their > transition to > > using tombstone markers. > > > > On hind sight it maybe easier to just upgrade and downgrade the > messages > > on version as you propose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone > > ________________________________________ > > From: Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:34:41 AM > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-87 - Add Compaction Tombstone Flag > > > > For the use case, one potential use case is for schema registration. > For > > example, in Avro, a null value corresponds to a Null schema. So, if > you > > want to be able to keep the schema id in a delete message, the value > can't > > be null. We could get around this issue by specializing null value > during > > schema registration though. > > > > Now for the proposed changes. We probably should preserve client > > compatibility. If a client application is sending a null value to a > > compacted topic, ideally, it should work the same after the client > > upgrades. > > > > I am not sure about making the tombstone marker configurable, > especially at > > the topic level. Should we allow users to change the config values > back and > > forth, and what would be the implication? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Yes, changing the logic in the log cleaner makes sense. There > could be > > some > > > other thing worth thinking (e.g. the message size change after > > conversion), > > > though. > > > > > > The scenario I was thinking is the following: > > > Imagine a distributed caching system built on top of Kafka. A user > is > > > consuming from a topic and it is guaranteed that if the user > consume to > > the > > > log end it will get the latest value for all the keys. Currently > if the > > > consumer sees a null value it knows the key has been removed. Now > let's > > say > > > we rolled out this change. And the producer applies a message with > the > > > tombstone flag set, but the value was not null. When we append that > > message > > > to the log I suppose we will not do the down conversion if the > broker has > > > set the message.format.version to the latest. Because the log > cleaner > > won't > > > touch the active log segment, so that message will be sitting in > the > > active > > > segment as is. Now when a consumer that hasn't upgraded yet > consumes that > > > tombstone message in the active segment, it seems that the broker > will > > need > > > to down convert that message to remove the value, right? In this > case, we > > > cannot wait for the log cleaner to do the down conversion because > that > > > message may have already been consumed before the log compaction > happens. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Michael Pearce < > michael.pea...@ig.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Becket, > > > > > > > > We were thinking more about having the logic that’s in the method > > > > shouldRetainMessage configurable via http://kafka.apache.org/ > > > > documentation.html#brokerconfigs at a broker/topic level. And > then > > > scrap > > > > auto converting the message, and allow organisations to manage > the > > > rollout > > > > of enabling of the feature. > > > > (this isn’t in documentation but in response to the discussion > thread > > as > > > > an alternative approach to roll out the feature) > > > > > > > > Does this make any more sense? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On 11/3/16, 2:27 PM, "Becket Qin" <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > Do you mean using a new configuration it is just the exiting > > > > message.format.version config? It seems the > message.format.version > > > > config > > > > is enough in this case. And the default value would always > be the > > > > latest > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > Message version migration would be handled as like in > KIP-32 > > > > > > > > Also just want to confirm on this. Today if an old consumer > > consumes > > > a > > > > log > > > > compacted topic and sees an empty value, it knows that is a > > > tombstone. > > > > After we start to use the attribute bit, a tombstone message > can > > > have a > > > > non-empty value. So by "like in KIP-32" you mean we will > remove the > > > > value > > > > to down convert the message if the consumer version is old, > right? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Michael Pearce < > > > michael.pea...@ig.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Joel , et al. > > > > > > > > > > Any comments on the below idea to handle roll out / > compatibility > > > of > > > > this > > > > > feature, using a configuration? > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense/clear? > > > > > Does it add value? > > > > > Do we want to enforce flag by default, or value by > default, or > > > both? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/27/16, 4:47 PM, "Michael Pearce" < > michael.pea...@ig.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, James, I think this is a really good addition > to the > > > KIP > > > > > details, please feel free to amend the wiki/add the use > cases, > > also > > > > if any > > > > > others you think of. I definitely think its worthwhile > > documenting. > > > > If you > > > > > can’t let me know ill add them next week (just leaving for > a long > > > > weekend > > > > > off) > > > > > > > > > > Re Joel and others comments about upgrade and > compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > Rather than trying to auto manage this. > > > > > > > > > > Actually maybe we make a configuration option, both at > server > > > > and per > > > > > topic level to control the behavior of how the server logic > > should > > > > work out > > > > > if the record, is a tombstone record . > > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > > > key = compation.tombstone.marker > > > > > > > > > > value options: > > > > > > > > > > value (continues to use null value as tombstone > marker) > > > > > flag (expects to use the tombstone flag) > > > > > value_or_flag (if either is true it treats the record > as a > > > > tombstone) > > > > > > > > > > This way on upgrade users can keep current behavior, > and > > slowly > > > > > migrate to the new. Having a transition period of using > > > > value_or_flag, > > > > > finally having flag only if an organization wishes to use > null > > > values > > > > > without it being treated as a tombstone marker (use case > noted > > > below) > > > > > > > > > > Having it both global broker level and topic override > also > > > > allows some > > > > > flexibility here. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/27/16, 8:03 AM, "James Cheng" < > wushuja...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This KIP would definitely address a gap in the > current > > > > > functionality, where you currently can't have a tombstone > with > > any > > > > > associated content. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I'd like to talk about use cases, to > make sure > > > > that > > > > > this is in fact useful. The KIP should be updated with > whatever > > use > > > > cases > > > > > we come up with. > > > > > > > > > > First of all, an observation: When we speak about > log > > > > compaction, > > > > > we typically think of "the latest message for a key is > retained". > > > In > > > > that > > > > > respect, a delete tombstone (i.e. a message with a null > payload) > > is > > > > treated > > > > > the same as any other Kafka message: the latest message is > > > retained. > > > > It > > > > > doesn't matter whether the latest message is null, or if > the > > latest > > > > message > > > > > has actual content. In all cases, the last message is > retained. > > > > > > > > > > The only way a delete tombstone is treated > differently > > from > > > > other > > > > > Kafka messages is that it automatically disappears after a > while. > > > > The time > > > > > of deletion is specified using delete.retention.ms. > > > > > > > > > > So what we're really talking about is, do we want > to > > > support > > > > > messages in a log-compacted topic that auto-delete > themselves > > after > > > > a while? > > > > > > > > > > In a thread from 2015, there was a discussion on > > > first-class > > > > > support of headers between Roger Hoover, Felix GV, Jun > Rao, and > > I. > > > > See > > > > > thread at https://groups.google.com/d/ > msg/confluent-platform/ > > > > > 8xPbjyUE_7E/yQ1AeCufL_gJ <https://groups.google.com/d/ > > > > > msg/confluent-platform/8xPbjyUE_7E/yQ1AeCufL_gJ> . In that > > thread, > > > > Jun > > > > > raised a good question that I didn't have a good answer > for at > > the > > > > time: If > > > > > a message is going to auto-delete itself after a while, how > > > > important was > > > > > the message? That is, what information did the message > contain > > that > > > > was > > > > > important *for a while* but not so important that it > needed to be > > > > kept > > > > > around forever? > > > > > > > > > > Some use cases that I can think of: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Tracability. I would like to know who issued > this > > delete > > > > > tombstone. It might include the hostname, IP of the > producer of > > the > > > > delete. > > > > > 2) Timestamps. I would like to know when this > delete was > > > > issued. > > > > > This use case is already addressed by the availability of > > > per-message > > > > > timestamps that came in 0.10.0 > > > > > 3) Data provenance. I hope I'm using this phrase > > correctly, > > > > but > > > > > what I mean is, where did this delete come from? What > processing > > > job > > > > > emitted it? What input to the processing job caused this > delete > > to > > > be > > > > > produced? For example, if a record in topic A was > processed and > > > > caused a > > > > > delete tombstone to be emitted to topic B, I might like the > > offset > > > > of the > > > > > topic A message to be attached to the topic B message. > > > > > 4) Distributed tracing for stream topologies. This > might > > > be a > > > > > slight repeat of the above use cases. In the microservices > world, > > > we > > > > can > > > > > generate call-graphs of webservices using tools like > Zipkin/ > > > > opentracing.io > > > > > <http://opentracing.io/>, or something homegrown like > > > > > https://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-service-call- > > > > > graph/real-time-distributed-tracing-website-performance- > > > and-efficiency > > > > < > > > > > https://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-service-call- > > > > > graph/real-time-distributed-tracing-website-performance- > > > > and-efficiency>. > > > > > I can imagine that you might want to do something similar > for > > > stream > > > > > processing topologies, where stream processing jobs carry > along > > and > > > > forward > > > > > along a globally unique identifier, and a distributed > topology > > > graph > > > > is > > > > > generated. > > > > > 5) Cases where processing a delete requires data > that is > > > not > > > > > available in the message key. I'm not sure I have a good > example > > of > > > > this, > > > > > though. One hand-wavy example might be where I am > publishing > > > > documents into > > > > > Kafka where the documentId is the message key, and the text > > > contents > > > > of the > > > > > document are in the message body. And I have a consuming > job that > > > > does some > > > > > analytics on the message body. If that document gets > deleted, > > then > > > > the > > > > > consuming job might need the original message body in > order to > > > > "delete" > > > > > that message's impact from the analytics. But I'm not sure > that > > is > > > a > > > > great > > > > > example. If the consumer was worried about that, the > consumer > > would > > > > > probably keep the original message around, stored by > primary key. > > > > And then > > > > > all it would need from a delete message would be the > primary key > > of > > > > the > > > > > message. > > > > > > > > > > Do people think these are valid use cases? > > > > > > > > > > What are other use cases that people can think of? > > > > > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Mayuresh Gharat < > > > > > gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 @Joel. > > > > > > I think a clear migration plan of upgrading and > > > > downgrading of > > > > > server and > > > > > > clients along with handling of issues that Joel > > > mentioned, > > > > on > > > > > the KIP would > > > > > > be really great. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Mayuresh > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Joel Koshy < > > > > jjkosh...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm not sure why it would be useful, but it > should be > > > > > theoretically > > > > > >> possible if the attribute bit alone is enough > to mark > > a > > > > > tombstone. OTOH, we > > > > > >> could consider that as invalid if we wish. > These are > > > > relevant > > > > > details that > > > > > >> I think should be added to the KIP. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also, in the few odd scenarios that I mentioned > we > > > should > > > > also > > > > > consider > > > > > >> that fetches could be coming from other > > > yet-to-be-upgraded > > > > > brokers in a > > > > > >> cluster that is being upgraded. So we would > probably > > > want > > > > to > > > > > continue to > > > > > >> support nulls as tombstones or down-convert in > a way > > > that > > > > we > > > > > are sure works > > > > > >> with least surprise to fetchers. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There is a slightly vague statement under > > > "Compatibility, > > > > > Deprecation, and > > > > > >> Migration Plan" that could benefit more details: > > *Logic > > > > would > > > > > base on > > > > > >> current behavior of null value or if tombstone > flag > > set > > > to > > > > > true, as such > > > > > >> wouldn't impact any existing flows simply allow > new > > > > producers > > > > > to make use > > > > > >> of the feature*. It is unclear to me based on > that > > > > whether you > > > > > would > > > > > >> interpret null as a tombstone if the tombstone > > attribute > > > > bit is > > > > > off. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Xavier Léauté < > > > > > xav...@confluent.io> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Does this mean that starting with V4 requests > we > > would > > > > allow > > > > > storing null > > > > > >>> messages in compacted topics? The KIP should > probably > > > > clarify > > > > > the > > > > > >> behavior > > > > > >>> for null messages where the tombstone flag is > not > > net. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:32 AM Magnus > Edenhill < > > > > > mag...@edenhill.se> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> 2016-10-25 21:36 GMT+02:00 Nacho Solis > > > > > <nso...@linkedin.com.invalid>: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> I think you probably require a MagicByte > bump if > > you > > > > expect > > > > > correct > > > > > >>>>> behavior of the system as a whole. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> From a client perspective you want to make > sure > > that > > > > when you > > > > > >> deliver a > > > > > >>>>> message that the broker supports the feature > you're > > > > expecting > > > > > >>>>> (compaction). So, depending on the behavior > of the > > > > broker on > > > > > >>>> encountering > > > > > >>>>> a previously undefined bit flag I would > suggest > > > making > > > > some > > > > > change to > > > > > >>>> make > > > > > >>>>> certain that flag-based compaction is > supported. > > I'm > > > > going > > > > > to guess > > > > > >>> that > > > > > >>>>> the MagicByte would do this. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I dont believe this is needed since it is > already > > > > attributed > > > > > through > > > > > >> the > > > > > >>>> request's API version. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Producer: > > > > > >>>> * if a client sends ProduceRequest V4 then > > > > attributes.bit5 > > > > > indicates a > > > > > >>>> tombstone > > > > > >>>> * if a clients sends ProduceRequest <V4 then > > > > attributes.bit5 > > > > > is > > > > > >> ignored > > > > > >>>> and value==null indicates a tombstone > > > > > >>>> * in both cases the on-disk messages are > stored with > > > > > attributes.bit5 > > > > > >> (I > > > > > >>>> assume?) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Consumer: > > > > > >>>> * if a clients sends FetchRequest V4 messages > are > > > > > sendfile():ed > > > > > >> directly > > > > > >>>> from disk (with attributes.bit5) > > > > > >>>> * if a client sends FetchRequest <V4 messages > are > > > > slowpathed > > > > > and > > > > > >>>> translated from attributes.bit5 to value=null > as > > > > required. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> That's my understanding anyway, please > correct me if > > > I'm > > > > > wrong. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> /Magnus > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Magnus > Edenhill < > > > > > >> mag...@edenhill.se> > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> It is safe to assume that a previously > undefined > > > > attributes > > > > > bit > > > > > >> will > > > > > >>> be > > > > > >>>>>> unset in protocol requests from existing > clients, > > if > > > > not, > > > > > such a > > > > > >>> client > > > > > >>>>> is > > > > > >>>>>> already violating the protocol and needs to > be > > > fixed. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> So I dont see a need for a MagicByte bump, > both > > > > broker and > > > > > client > > > > > >> has > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> information it needs to construct or parse > the > > > message > > > > > according to > > > > > >>>>> request > > > > > >>>>>> version. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 2016-10-25 18:48 GMT+02:00 Michael Pearce < > > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com>: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Magnus, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I was wondering if I even needed to change > those > > > > also, as > > > > > >>> technically > > > > > >>>>>>> we’re just making use of a non used > attribute > > bit, > > > > but im > > > > > not > > > > > >> 100% > > > > > >>>> that > > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>>> be always false currently. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> If someone can say 100% it will already be > set > > > false > > > > with > > > > > current > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>>>> historic bit wise masking techniques used > over > > the > > > > time, > > > > > we could > > > > > >>> do > > > > > >>>>> away > > > > > >>>>>>> with both, and simply just start to use it. > > > > Unfortunately > > > > > I don’t > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>>>>>> historic knowledge so was hoping it would > be > > > flagged > > > > up in > > > > > this > > > > > >>>>>> discussion > > > > > >>>>>>> thread ? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers > > > > > >>>>>>> Mike > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/25/16, 5:36 PM, "Magnus Edenhill" < > > > > > mag...@edenhill.se> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Michael, > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> With the version bumps for Produce and > Fetch > > > > requests, > > > > > do you > > > > > >>>>> really > > > > > >>>>>>> need > > > > > >>>>>>> to bump MagicByte too? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > > > > >>>>>>> Magnus > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> 2016-10-25 18:09 GMT+02:00 Michael > Pearce < > > > > > >>> michael.pea...@ig.com > > > > > >>>>> : > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi All, > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I would like to discuss the following KIP > > > proposal: > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > >>>>>>>> 87+-+Add+Compaction+Tombstone+Flag > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is off the back of the discussion on > KIP-82 > > > / > > > > KIP > > > > > >>> meeting > > > > > >>>>>>> where it > > > > > >>>>>>>> was agreed to separate this issue and > feature. > > > See: > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache. > > > > org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/201610 > > > > > . > > > > > >>>>>>>> mbox/%3cCAJS3ho8OcR== > EcxsJ8OP99pD2hz=iiGecWsv- > > > > > >>>>>>>> EZsBsNyDcKr=g...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks > > > > > >>>>>>>> Mike > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The information contained in this email is > > > strictly > > > > > >>>> confidential > > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > > >>>>>>> for > > > > > >>>>>>>> the use of the addressee only, unless > otherwise > > > > indicated. > > > > > >> If > > > > > >>>> you > > > > > >>>>>>> are not > > > > > >>>>>>>> the intended recipient, please do not > read, > > copy, > > > > use or > > > > > >>>> disclose > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>>> others > > > > > >>>>>>>> this message or any attachment. Please > also > > notify > > > > the > > > > > >> sender > > > > > >>>> by > > > > > >>>>>>> replying > > > > > >>>>>>>> to this email or by telephone (+44(020 > 7896 > > 0011) > > > > and then > > > > > >>>> delete > > > > > >>>>>>> the email > > > > > >>>>>>>> and any copies of it. Opinions, > conclusion (etc) > > > > that do > > > > > >> not > > > > > >>>>> relate > > > > > >>>>>>> to the > > > > > >>>>>>>> official business of this company shall be > > > > understood as > > > > > >>>> neither > > > > > >>>>>>> given nor > > > > > >>>>>>>> endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG > > Markets > > > > Limited > > > > > >> (a > > > > > >>>>>> company > > > > > >>>>>>>> registered in England and Wales, company > number > > > > 04008957) > > > > > >> and > > > > > >>>> IG > > > > > >>>>>>> Index > > > > > >>>>>>>> Limited (a company registered in England > and > > > Wales, > > > > > company > > > > > >>>>> number > > > > > >>>>>>>> 01190902). Registered address at Cannon > Bridge > > > > House, 25 > > > > > >>>> Dowgate > > > > > >>>>>>> Hill, > > > > > >>>>>>>> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited > > (register > > > > number > > > > > >>>> 195355) > > > > > >>>>>>> and IG > > > > > >>>>>>>> Index Limited (register number 114059) are > > > > authorised and > > > > > >>>>> regulated > > > > > >>>>>>> by the > > > > > >>>>>>>> Financial Conduct Authority. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> The information contained in this email is > > strictly > > > > > confidential > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>> for > > > > > >>>>>>> the use of the addressee only, unless > otherwise > > > > indicated. > > > > > If you > > > > > >>> are > > > > > >>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>> the intended recipient, please do not > read, copy, > > > > use or > > > > > disclose > > > > > >>> to > > > > > >>>>>> others > > > > > >>>>>>> this message or any attachment. Please also > > notify > > > > the > > > > > sender by > > > > > >>>>> replying > > > > > >>>>>>> to this email or by telephone (+44(020 > 7896 0011) > > > > and then > > > > > delete > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>>>> email > > > > > >>>>>>> and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion > (etc) > > > > that do > > > > > not > > > > > >> relate > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>> official business of this company shall be > > > > understood as > > > > > neither > > > > > >>>> given > > > > > >>>>>> nor > > > > > >>>>>>> endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG > > Markets > > > > Limited > > > > > (a > > > > > >>> company > > > > > >>>>>>> registered in England and Wales, company > number > > > > 04008957) > > > > > and IG > > > > > >>>> Index > > > > > >>>>>>> Limited (a company registered in England > and > > Wales, > > > > company > > > > > >> number > > > > > >>>>>>> 01190902). Registered address at Cannon > Bridge > > > > House, 25 > > > > > Dowgate > > > > > >>>> Hill, > > > > > >>>>>>> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited > > (register > > > > number > > > > > 195355) > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>>>> IG > > > > > >>>>>>> Index Limited (register number 114059) are > > > > authorised and > > > > > >> regulated > > > > > >>>> by > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>> Financial Conduct Authority. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>> Nacho (Ignacio) Solis > > > > > >>>>> Kafka > > > > > >>>>> nso...@linkedin.com > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -Regards, > > > > > > Mayuresh R. Gharat > > > > > > (862) 250-7125 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly > > > confidential > > > > and > > > > > for the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise > indicated. If > > > > you are > > > > > not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use > or > > > > disclose to > > > > > others this message or any attachment. Please also notify > the > > > sender > > > > by > > > > > replying to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) > and > > then > > > > delete > > > > > the email and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) > that > > do > > > > not > > > > > relate to the official business of this company shall be > > understood > > > > as > > > > > neither given nor endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of > IG > > > Markets > > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company > > number > > > > > 04008957) and IG Index Limited (a company registered in > England > > and > > > > Wales, > > > > > company number 01190902). Registered address at Cannon > Bridge > > > House, > > > > 25 > > > > > Dowgate Hill, London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited > (register > > > > number > > > > > 195355) and IG Index Limited (register number 114059) are > > > authorised > > > > and > > > > > regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential > and > > for > > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If > you are > > not > > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or > disclose to > > > others > > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by > > replying > > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then > delete the > > > email > > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not > relate to > > > the > > > > official business of this company shall be understood as neither > given > > > nor > > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a > company > > > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG > Index > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company > number > > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate > Hill, > > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number > 195355) and > > IG > > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and > regulated by > > > the > > > > Financial Conduct Authority. > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and > for > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you > are not > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to > others > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by > replying > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete > the email > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate > to the > > official business of this company shall be understood as neither > given nor > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG > Index > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate > Hill, > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) > and IG > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated > by the > > Financial Conduct Authority. > > > > > > -- > -Regards, > Mayuresh R. Gharat > (862) 250-7125 > > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to others > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the email > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to the > official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and IG > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by the > Financial Conduct Authority. > -- -Regards, Mayuresh R. Gharat (862) 250-7125
