The vote has passed with 5 binding votes (Harsha, Gwen, Manikumar, Colin, me) and 2 non-binding votes (Satish, Mickael). I will update the KIP page.
Many thanks to everyone for the feedback and votes. Regards, Rajini On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:41 PM Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Colin, I have updated the KIP to mention that we don't return > UNKNOWN, ANY or ALL. > > Regards, > > Rajini > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:10 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks, Rajini! Just to make it clear, can we spell out that we don't >> set the UNKNOWN, ANY, or ALL bits ever? >> >> +1 once that's resolved. >> >> cheers, >> Colin >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, at 04:11, Rajini Sivaram wrote: >> > Hi Colin, >> > >> > Yes, it makes sense to reduce response size by using bit fields. Updated >> > the KIP. >> > >> > I have also updated the KIP to say that clients will ignore any bits >> set by >> > the broker that are unknown to the client, so there will be no UNKNOWN >> > operations in the set returned by AdminClient. Brokers may however set >> bits >> > regardless of client version. Does that match your expectation? >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > Rajini >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 1:03 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Rajini, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the explanations. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019, at 11:59, Rajini Sivaram wrote: >> > > > Hi Colin, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the review. Sorry I meant that an array of INT8's, each >> of >> > > which >> > > > is an AclOperation code will be returned. I have clarified that in >> the >> > > KIP. >> > > >> > > Do you think it's worth considering a bitfield here still? An array >> will >> > > take up at least 4 bytes for the length, plus whatever length the >> elements >> > > are. A 32-bit bitfield would pretty much always take up less space. >> And >> > > we can have a new version of the RPC with 64 bits or whatever if we >> outgrow >> > > 32 operations. MetadataResponse for a big cluster could contain >> quite a >> > > lot of topics, tens or hundreds of thousands. So the space savings >> could >> > > be considerable. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > All permitted operations will be returned from the set of supported >> > > > operations on each resource. This is regardless of whether the >> access was >> > > > implicitly or explicitly granted. Have clarified that in the KIP. >> > > >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Since the values returned are INT8 codes, clients can simply ignore >> any >> > > > they don't recognize. Java clients convert these into >> > > AclOperation.UNKNOWN. >> > > > That way we don't need to update Metadata/describe request versions >> when >> > > > new operations are added to a resource. This is consistent with >> > > > DescribeAcls behaviour. Have added this to the compatibility >> section of >> > > the >> > > > KIP. >> > > >> > > Displaying "unknown" for new AclOperations made sense for >> DescribeAcls, >> > > since the ACL is explicitly referencing the new AclOperation. For >> > > example, if you upgrade your Kafka cluster to a new version that >> supports >> > > DESCRIBE_CONFIGS, your old ACLs still don't reference >> DESCRIBE_CONFIGS. >> > > >> > > In contrast, in the case here, existing topics (or other resources) >> might >> > > pick up the new ACLOperation just by upgrading Kafka. For example, >> if you >> > > had ALL permission on a topic and you upgrade to a new version with >> > > DESCRIBE_CONFIGS, you now have DESCRIBE_CONFIGS permission on that >> topic. >> > > This would result in a lot of "unknowns" being displayed here, which >> might >> > > not be ideal. >> > > >> > > Also, there is an argument from intent-- the intention here is to let >> you >> > > know what you can do with a resource that already exists. Knowing >> that you >> > > can do an unknown thing isn't very useful. In contrast, for >> DescribeAcls, >> > > knowing that an ACL references an operation your software is too old >> to >> > > understand is useful (you may choose not to modify that ACL, since you >> > > don't know what it does, for example.) What do you think? >> > > >> > > cheers, >> > > Colin >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Thank you, >> > > > >> > > > Rajini >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:46 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Rajini, >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the KIP! >> > > > > >> > > > > The KIP specifies that "Authorized operations will be returned as >> [an] >> > > > > INT8 consistent with [the] AclOperation used in ACL requests and >> > > > > responses." But there may be more than one AclOperation that is >> > > applied to >> > > > > a given resource. For example, a principal may have both READ and >> > > WRITE >> > > > > permission on a topic. >> > > > > >> > > > > One option for representing this would be a bitfield. A 32-bit >> > > bitfield >> > > > > could have the appropriate bits set. For example, if READ and >> WRITE >> > > > > operations were permitted, bits 3 and 4 could be set. >> > > > > >> > > > > Another thing to think about here is that certain AclOperations >> imply >> > > > > certain others. For example, having WRITE on a topic gives you >> > > DESCRIBE on >> > > > > that topic as well automatically. Does that mean that a topic >> with >> > > WRITE >> > > > > on it should automatically get DESCRIBE set in the bitfield? I >> would >> > > argue >> > > > > that the answer is yes, for consistency's sake. >> > > > > >> > > > > We will inevitably add new AclOperations over time, and we have to >> > > think >> > > > > about how to do this in a compatible way. The simplest approach >> would >> > > be >> > > > > to just leave out the new AclOperations when a describe request >> comes >> > > in >> > > > > from an older version client. This should be spelled out in the >> > > > > compatibility section. >> > > > > >> > > > > best, >> > > > > Colin >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, at 02:28, Rajini Sivaram wrote: >> > > > > > I would like to start vote on KIP-430 to optionally obtain >> authorized >> > > > > > operations when describing resources: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-430+-+Return+Authorized+Operations+in+Describe+Responses >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Rajini >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
