FYI: For those not following the VOTE thread .... I updated the KIP and changed the field "rest.advertised.security.protocol" to "rest.advertised.security.listener" as suggested by Jason.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> wrote: > Hi all, > > I did one more update to the KIP-208. I added the > "ssl.endpoint.identification.algorithm" to the list of supported options. > It can be used to enable / disable the hostname validation when the Kafka > Connect nodes are forwarding the requests to the leader. It is minor but > useful change, so I hope nobody minds :-). > > Thanks & Regards > Jakub > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> wrote: > >> Hi Randall, >> >> Yes the KIP should be up to date. The VOTE thread is actually running >> already for more than 2 months. So the only thing we need is the votes. I >> pinged the vote thread so that it gets more attention. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> Jakub >> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jakub, have you had a chance to update the KIP with the latest changes? >>> Would be great to start the vote today so that it's open long enough to >>> adopt before the deadline on Tuesday. Let me know if I can help. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> wrote: >>> >>> > I have been thinking about this a bit more yesterday while updating the >>> > code. I think you are right, we should use only the prefixed values if >>> at >>> > least one of them exists. Even I got quite easily confused what setup >>> is >>> > actually used when the fields are mixed :-). Randall was also in >>> favour of >>> > this approach. So I think we should go this way. I will update the KIP >>> > accordingly. >>> > >>> > >>> > > I'm fine with consistency, but maybe the thing to do here then is to >>> > ensure >>> > > that we definitely log the "effective" or "derived" config before >>> using >>> > it >>> > > so there is at least some useful trace of what we actually used that >>> can >>> > be >>> > > helpful in debugging. >>> > >>> >> >> >
