I like R2_LOCAL_SIGNING! It keeps R2 in the name which I think is important as the token format varies by provider (R2’s is Cloudflare’s own format). Another provider would likely need to provide its own value.
Dmitri, does R2_LOCAL_SIGNING work for you too? Get Outlook for Mac<https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> From: Yufei Gu <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 15:59 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support with scoped credential vending Hi Austen, Thanks! We should be good as long as the mechanisms are specified in the spec so that both clients and servers won't be confused by a random string. This approach ensures they are interoperable and easy to validate. Regarding the name, CLOUDFLARE_R2 sounds good. Here are a few alternatives to express the mechanisms: - R2_LOCAL_SIGNING - LOCAL_SIGNING LOCAL_SIGNING describes the method used for signing without reaching out to the Security Token Service (STS), and it could potentially apply to other storage providers beyond R2. What do you think? Yufei On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 1:16 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Austen, > > Your plan matches my understanding. > > Also +1 to "CLOUDFLARE_R2" as the new mechanism name. > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 3:56 PM Austen Tomek < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the discussion today. My understanding of where we landed was > > to keep credentialVendingMechanism a string and have the spec define the > > values Apache Polaris accepts and what they mean. In this PR that is just > > STS and the empty value still signifies the server default. In PR 2 I’ll > be > > adding CLOUDFLARE_R2 to the same list. The server already refuses any > other > > value with a 400, so it seems like this is just a documentation change. > Let > > me know if I am missing anything. > > > > Thanks, > > Austen > > > > Get Outlook for Mac<https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > From: Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 12:31 > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support with scoped credential > vending > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > Thanks for providing the details! Replying inline. > > > > > When a client creates a catalog with credentialVendingMechanism: "m1", > > > what is the expected behavior? > > > > This depends on the meaning of "m1" and the specific server build. > > > > In Apache Polaris "m1" is not meaningful and is not supported. > > The server will reject this value on the corresponding catalog > > update request. This is handled in PolarisAdminService in the current PR > > state. > > > > > 1. The server supports it: This is the ideal scenario (happy path). > > > > Indeed. > > > > > 2. The server does not support it: This creates inconsistency if a > > client > > > that works with Server A fails on Server B. > > > > In my view this is not an inconsistency as different servers do not have > > to provide the same capabilities. > > > > Creating a catalog with a specific credentialVendingMechanism is an > > administrative task. The admin user must be aware of what the server > > supports. This is a deployment / configuration concern. Not a runtime > > compatibility concern. > > > > > 3. The server supports "m1" differently: This is the worst-case > > scenario, > > > where the client's expectations conflict with the server's actual > > behavior. > > > > This is a good point! > > > > My take is that if "m1" is defined in Apache Polaris, then all server > > builds must implement it the same way. > > > > The definition will be expressed by means of S3CredentialVendingMechanism > > classes included in standard Apache Polaris releases (and hopefully docs > > too). > > > > Currently only "STS" and "DEFAULT" (falling back on STS) are defined now. > > > > If "m1" is not defined in Apache Polaris, custom builds are free to > assign > > any meaning to it and do not have to be mutually compatible. This is the > > main point for extensibility. > > > > Note that custom builds are not "Apache Polaris" anymore and cannot > > claim to be the "same" as Apache Polaris. This is a matter of ASF > > trademarks. > > Normally, custom builds say something like "Powered by Apache Polaris". > > > > Again, the admin user setting "m1" as a vending mechanism in a particular > > server must be aware of what that server provides and understand > > the meaning of "m1" in that context. The onus to describe the meaning of > > "m1" to users in this case rests with the custom server developers. > > > > We can talk about preventing name overlaps, but I do not think > establishing > > any kind of name registry is worth the trouble. In this day and age, I > > believe > > all downstream project developers are aware of name overlap issues. > > and will follow normal practices to avoid name collisions. > > > > I hope this clears your concerns. > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 1:02 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > > > When a client creates a catalog with credentialVendingMechanism: "m1", > > what > > > is the expected behavior? > > > > > > Here is a suitaion if we allow a freeform string, the client might > > > encounter three different scenarios depending on the server: > > > 1. The server supports it: This is the ideal scenario (happy path). > > > 2. The server does not support it: This creates inconsistency if a > > client > > > that works with Server A fails on Server B. > > > 3. The server supports "m1" differently: This is the worst-case > > scenario, > > > where the client's expectations conflict with the server's actual > > behavior. > > > > > > I don't think this is the situation we want users to run into. The fix > is > > > quite simple, using a specified values instead of a freefrom string. > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 9:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Since concerns were raised, it's important to take a moment to align > > > > rather than rushing. That's the way we drive consensus :) > > > > > > > > On the technical question of string vs enum for > > > > credentialVendingMechanism, here is my take: > > > > > > > > 1. This field is part of the Management API for catalog > > > > administrators. Iceberg REST clients (Spark, Trino, ...) never see or > > > > interact with credentialVendingMechanism. They only consume standard > > > > vended credentials (s3.* session tokens/keys) during table > > > > load/commit. There is no risk of breaking query engine clients across > > > > deployments. > > > > 2. One of our primary goals when discussing S3-compatible stores (R2, > > > > MinIO, ...) was to keep credential vending pluggable via SPI rather > > > > than hardcoding vendor-specific paths in core. If we use a closed > enum > > > > in the OpenAPI spec, it means: > > > > * any new mechanism (including R2 in Phase 2 or MinIO) requires a > > spec > > > > change. > > > > * any downstream deployment or plugin providing a custom mechanism > > > > would break OpenAPI-generated client SDKs due to strict enum > > > > validation. > > > > * runtime validation on the server (returning HTTP 400 with a clear > > > > message) combined with the realm allowlist provides the right > > > > server-side guardrail without restricting extensibility. > > > > 3. Yufei's concerns about a clear contract and avoiding confusion is > > > > valid. We can address contract clarity without closing the enum: > > > > * we keep type: string, but document the well-known/standard values > > > > (STS, DEFAULT) explicitly in the description and examples in the > > > > OpenAPI spec (as PR #5513 does). > > > > * we ensure the server validates cleanly with case-insensitivity > (or > > > > canonical normalization) so administrators get immediate, actionable > > > > feedback on typos. > > > > > > > > PR #5513 does a solid job laying this foundation so Austen can move > > > > forward with Phase 2. If we keep it as a string with well-documented > > > > standard values and server-siide validation, I think it's the right > > > > balance between spec clarify and pluggability. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 12:50 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > Conversely, an enum will require defining all possible vending > > > > > mechanisms in > > > > > > > the Polaris API spec. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Otherwise, a client may failed in certain deployments. > > > > > > > > > > Could you describe this failure mode in terms of API > request/response > > > > flow? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 2:06 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Conversely, an enum will require defining all possible vending > > > > > > mechanisms in > > > > > > the Polaris API spec. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Otherwise, a client may failed in certain deployments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will prevent downstream projects from using custom vending > > > > > > mechanisms. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. if downstream needs custom vending mechanisms, they can > always > > > > build > > > > > > their own Polaris. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 11:01 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Using an enum will clarify the REST spec contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand your point. Current PR clearly > > describes > > > > the > > > > > > > meaning of "credentialVendingMechanism" and lists options > > available > > > > > > > out-of-the-box. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does an enum achieve, that (current) runtime validation > does > > > > not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conversely, an enum will require defining all possible vending > > > > mechanisms > > > > > > > in the Polaris API spec. This will prevent downstream projects > > from > > > > using > > > > > > > custom vending mechanisms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe Polaris as a project currently promotes downstream > > > > > > > customizability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 1:21 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have consensus on the PR, esp. a client > should > > > NOT > > > > > > > depend > > > > > > > > on a specific deployment. Using an enum will clarify the REST > > > spec > > > > > > > > contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 7:46 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR [5513] has been in review for quite some time. I believe > > we > > > > have > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > consensus on the Management API changes and java code > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point that may still have divergent opinions is > > > whether > > > > to > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > free text or enum for "credentialVendingMechanism". I > > > personally > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > free text (rationale explained in previous comments). This > > > > > > conversation > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > been dormant for a few days, so I assume lazy consensus on > > the > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > state of the PR (free text). In any case switching from > free > > > > text to > > > > > > > enum > > > > > > > > > is a non-breaking API change before the next release in > case > > > the > > > > > > > > consensus > > > > > > > > > shifts and we need to adjust. We have about one month for > > > > followup > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The java code introduced in this PR is not rigid and can > > change > > > > at > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > per our evolution guidelines [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose merging PR [5513] on Sept 30 unless fresh > blocking > > > > concerns > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > raised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://polaris.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/evolution/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [5513] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5513 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 9:30 AM Austen Tomek < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any chance I can get further reviews this week on the PR? > > I’d > > > > like > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > moving onto Phase 2 here if there are no further issues > to > > > > address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Mac<https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Thursday, September 24, 2026 at 17:33 > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support with scoped > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The REST spec is a contract between Polaris servers and > > > > clients > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think that this statement is a bit too strong. > > The > > > > > > > Management > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > spec defines a protocol for clients and servers to > > > communicate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] This would help avoid a situation where a Polaris > > > > client > > > > > > > works > > > > > > > > > > > only with certain deployments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Polaris has been developed as a customizable > > system, a > > > > REST > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > specification defined by Apache Polaris cannot control > the > > > > > > behaviour > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > possible downstream environments. The purpose of the spec > > is > > > to > > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > > > > protocol compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the value of `credentialVendingMechanism` has > no > > > > bearing > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > any logic clients need to execute. It is an opaque > > parameter > > > > > > > controlled > > > > > > > > > > by the Polaris administrator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The new credentialVendingMechanism field in the REST > spec > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable. My only suggestion is to use an enum > instead > > > of a > > > > > > > string. > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The above points are exactly the reason why the > Management > > > API > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > > enumerate all possible vending mechanisms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same applies to storage types too. However, we do not > > > have > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > > examples of 3rd party storage systems that go beyond > > > > S3/GCS/ADLS > > > > > > > (yet). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:38 PM Yufei Gu < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Austen. It's fair that endpoints are not > reliable > > > > given > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > s3-compatible can use arbitrary hostnames. > > > > > > > > > > > I also think stsUnavailable is fine to keep as-is. I > > don’t > > > > think > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > change its scope or repurpose it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The new credentialVendingMechanism field in the REST > spec > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > > My only suggestion is to use an enum instead of a > string. > > > The > > > > > > REST > > > > > > > > spec > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > a contract between Polaris servers and clients, so I’d > > > > expect it > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > define > > > > > > > > > > > the valid values and their meanings rather than leaving > > > them > > > > up > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > deployment. This would help avoid a situation where a > > > Polaris > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > works > > > > > > > > > > > only with certain deployments. Deployment-specific > > > mechanisms > > > > > > > > shouldn’t > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > part of the standard REST contract; users who need a > > custom > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > always extend the server in their own deployment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way the operator needs a per-realm switch like > > > > > > > > > > > SUPPORTED_S3_CREDENTIAL_VENDING_MECHANISMS to control > > which > > > > realm > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > mint > > > > > > > > > > > R2 credentials from the operators Cloudflare account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you clarify why we need a separate per-realm > > switch? > > > > Once > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > configuration is set at the catalog level to select a > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > mechanism, > > > > > > > > > > > the catalog will have no choice but to support it. Do > we > > > need > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > layer > > > > > > > > > > > of gating? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 5:53 AM Austen Tomek < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for missing your question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think Endpoint is sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Endpoint matching only works where the hostname > > > identifies > > > > the > > > > > > > > vendor > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > R2’s public hostnames that are recognizable, MinIO > and > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > self-hosted > > > > > > > > > > > > S3-compatible stores use arbitrary hostnames so there > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > match on. On top of that, if a match fails it would > > just > > > > > > silently > > > > > > > > > fall > > > > > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > > > > > to STS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now the endpoint just says how you’ll connect > not > > > > how the > > > > > > > > > > > > credentials are vended. There's endpoint and also > > > > > > > endpointInternal > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > server-side access, so it would be unclear which of > the > > > two > > > > > > > > decides. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For your other question, there is no second mechanism > > for > > > > R2 > > > > > > > today, > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > for other self-hosted stores the same endpoint could > be > > > > served > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > STS > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > a different token mechanism chosen per catalog. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stsUnavailable keeps it’s current behavior in the PR > > > (that > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > Prithvi’s > > > > > > > > > > > > point earlier in the thread) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way the operator needs a per-realm switch like > > > > > > > > > > > > SUPPORTED_S3_CREDENTIAL_VENDING_MECHANISMS to control > > > which > > > > > > realm > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > mint > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 credentials from the operators Cloudflare account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Austen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Mac<https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 at 17:53 > > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support with > > scoped > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the update. After looking at PR #5513, I > > think > > > > we > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > clarify whether we need a new > > credentialVendingMechanism > > > > field > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > spec/config. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Austen, you mentioned that the R2 account ID and > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > > from the endpoint. Could we also use the existing > field > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > `endpoint`, > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > recognize R2 and select its credential-vending > > mechanism, > > > > while > > > > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > current stsUnavailable behavior unchanged? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there cases where the endpoint isn’t enough, or > > where > > > > users > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > choose different vending mechanisms for the same > > > > endpoint(e.g., > > > > > > > R2) > > > > > > > > > per > > > > > > > > > > > > catalog? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 7:24 AM Austen Tomek < > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, Dimitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, both. PR 1 is ready for review: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5513 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I pushed a revision last night that takes in > > Dimitri’s > > > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > I changed from issuer to > credentialVendingMechanism. > > > It’s > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > plain > > > > > > > > > > > > > string and the realm allowlist is > > > > > > > > > > > > > SUPPORTED_S3_CREDENTIAL_VENDING_MECHANISMS, which > > still > > > > > > > defaults > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > [STS] > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mechanisms are CDI beans found by their identifier, > > as > > > > > > Dimitri > > > > > > > > > > > proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CLOUDFLARE_R2 bean and the R2 vending code will > > > > follow in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI workflow is waiting approval to run. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Austen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Mac< > https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 20:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support with > > > scoped > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having getCloudflareR2Endpoint on > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this does feel awkward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my POV pursuing the option with the > > > > "credentialIssuers" > > > > > > > > > property > > > > > > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > > > promising. This property is fairly generic and fits > > > > naturally > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > config, given that we already target multiple > > backends. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 8:48 PM Yufei Gu < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, Dmitri, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having getCloudflareR2Endpoint on > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That does feel awkward. However, > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3-compatible backends beyond AWS for a while, so > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > > precedent > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MinIO, etc.). The underlying mismatch is that we > > call > > > > the > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but its configuration mixes shared S3 settings > with > > > > > > > > AWS-specific > > > > > > > > > > > ones: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo → storage type: S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ├── Common S3 settings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > │ endpoint, region, pathStyleAccess, > > > > allowedLocations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > └── AWS-specific settings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > roleArn, externalId, STS, KMS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m open to separating the shared S3 settings > from > > > > > > > > > > provider-specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration if that helps, but I don’t think we > > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > > settle > > > > > > > > > > on a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broader refactor now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know when the PR is ready for review. I’d > be > > > > happy > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > take a > > > > > > > > > > > > > closer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 3:18 PM Dmitri > > Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to adding "credentialIssues" or similar > > > (renamed) > > > > > > > property > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, I was looking exactly for something > like > > > > that > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > > week > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea did not quite condense in my mind :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted some preliminary comments on the draft > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for community awareness, I'd like to > propose > > > > here > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > CDI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finding actual "issuer" / "mechanism" > > > > implementations. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many examples of this. The closest match in > this > > > > case is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > probably PolarisStorageIntegrationProvider. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This way the API does not have to enumerate all > > > > possible > > > > > > > > > values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Downstream > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > builds are free to add different > implementations > > > > without > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the API spec. The "allowed" list still makes > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In general, I like the direction this feature > is > > > > taking, > > > > > > > > > > although I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR reviews may take a few rounds :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 3:38 PM Austen Tomek < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing the loop since my last note and > > answering > > > > the > > > > > > > > > questions > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > come up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri's question on role ARNs: R2 doesn’t > have > > > > > > AWS-style > > > > > > > > IAM > > > > > > > > > > > roles > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ARNs. Our implementation signs temporary > > > > credentials > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > parent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > token’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secret, scoped to a bucket and a set of > > prefixes. > > > > The > > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jurisdiction come from the R2 endpoint. > Putting > > > the > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > roleArn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or userArn would give those fields a > different > > > > meaning, > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > I’ve > > > > > > > > > > > > left > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absent for CLOUDFLARE_R2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I pursued Option B. The S3 configuration > gains > > > one > > > > new > > > > > > > > field, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentialIssuer, with values STS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (default) and CLOUDFLARE_R2 and a realm > > allowlist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SUPPORTED_S3_CREDENTIAL_ISSUERS that defaults > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to [STS]. I left stsUnavailable untouched > > > > (Prithvi) so > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "vend nothing". The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentialIssuer is the explicit sign. The R2 > > > > config > > > > > > > > rejects > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stsUnavailable along with a host of other STS > > and > > > > KMS > > > > > > > > fields. > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in our non-production environment at the > > > > moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Draft PR for stage 1 (config field, API, > > > allowlist, > > > > > > > gates): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5513. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still see the appeal of a separate R2 > > > > configuration, > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested. My original reason for separating > it > > > > was to > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2-specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and validation together. Having > > > > > > > > > > > > getCloudflareR2Endpoint > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo is one part I’d > > still > > > > like > > > > > > > > > feedback > > > > > > > > > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to put a working version of Option B > > in > > > > front > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could discuss the actual changes. In my > earlier > > > > > > > > > implementation, > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate config also meant a separate storage > > > type > > > > > > > sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > S3FileIO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was the tradeoff that led me to try Option B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do the diffs change anyone’s lean here? And > are > > > the > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentialIssuer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > / STS / CLOUDFLARE_R2 / > > > > SUPPORTED_S3_CREDENTIAL_ISSUERS > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Austen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Mac< > > > > https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026 at 19:50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Cloudflare R2 support > > with > > > > > > scoped > > > > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Building on top of Ayush's and JB's > > suggestion, I > > > > agree > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can live inside the existing endpoint config > > > field. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That leaves only Account ID, so potentially > we > > > > could > > > > > > > store > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > role ARN. Note that userArn is currently > unused > > > in > > > > OSS > > > > > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That should allow us to keep existing > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3 storage backend, but will require special > > > > parsing of > > > > > > > > > > user/role > > > > > > > > > > > > ARN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to distinguish R2 from the other systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm still leaning towards the separate > > > > > > > > > > > R2StorageConfigurationInfo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be ok with overloading user/role ARN too if > > other > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > prefer > > > > > > > > > > > > > that. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guess a key question in this context is > whether > > > R2 > > > > has > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > role > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ARN at all.... but TBH I have no idea about > > > that. I > > > > > > hope > > > > > > > > > Austen > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to clarify that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 9:18 AM Prithvi S < > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Welcome, and thanks for starting with a > > > > [DISCUSS]. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > make a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the thread is talking about two > > layers, > > > > and > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side this should stay S3: > s3:// > > > > > > > locations, > > > > > > > > > s3.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3FileIO. Your PyIceberg / DuckDB / Iceberg > > > Java > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > show > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unmodified clients work, so a dedicated > > > R2FileIO > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > seem > > > > > > > > > > > > > worth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side I lean toward Dmitri: a > > > > distinct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2StorageConfigurationInfo and storage > > > > integration. > > > > > > > > > Issuance > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STS, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and folding Cloudflare fields into > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > > > mixes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unrelated concepts. The middle ground to > > avoid > > > > is a > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AWS-shaped underneath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One concrete caution if the Option B > > prototype > > > > stays > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > please do not overload stsUnavailable. > Today > > > that > > > > > > flag > > > > > > > > > skips > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AssumeRole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disables vending. R2 wants the opposite. > > vend, > > > > just > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > via > > > > > > > > > > > STS. > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flag would change meaning for existing > MinIO > > / > > > > NetApp > > > > > > > > > > catalogs. > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on S3 config, we need an explicit vending > > > > signal; a > > > > > > > > > dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoids that trap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On config surface, jurisdiction can live in > > > > endpoint > > > > > > > > > > > (<account>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > r2.cloudflarestorage.com vs > > > <account>.eu.r2...). > > > > > > > Account > > > > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the JWT sub, so keeping an explicit > > > > accountId and > > > > > > > > > > deriving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > audience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the endpoint seems enough. Parent > tokens > > > > should > > > > > > > stay > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > via storageName. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Local signing fits the vending model. > > > > Fail-closed on > > > > > > > > > > > cross-bucket > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read/write grants is the right call. Prefix > > > > claims > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > path comparison Polaris already uses, so we > > do > > > > not > > > > > > > mint a > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wider > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than the grant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to small PRs: FileIO discriminator > (#4486) > > > > > > > separately > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then management API + Java config, then > > > vending, > > > > > > Python > > > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sketching MinIO / Backblaze against the > same > > > > fields > > > > > > is > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check; a generic non-STS SPI can wait for a > > > > second > > > > > > > > backend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prithvi S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:31 AM Dmitri > > > > Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this contribution! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After briefly looking through your PR > [1] I > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding R2StorageConfigInfo makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though "aws" in > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo is > > > > > > > > > longer > > > > > > > > > > > > > implies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AWS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > services, and MinIO, Rust, Ozone are > > > supported > > > > just > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > well, > > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appears > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be significantly different from STS-based > > S3 > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > > that a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is probably the most natural way to > support > > > it > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The alternative, I guess, is to add R2 > > > > accountId > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optional properties to > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > > > > overload > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties), but that looks like mixing > > > > unrelated > > > > > > > > > concepts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding a generic property bag to > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenient because > > > > > > > > PolarisStorageIntegrationProviderImpl > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to know how to interpret it in order to > > > > redirect > > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests to R2-specific code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether > R2StorageConfigurationInfo > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and corresponding "storage integration" > > > > classes) > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > share a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > base > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class for common properties (e.g. > > endpoint). > > > > Even > > > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > > > > > > "endpoint" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not be relevant to R2 in the cloud, the > > fact > > > > that > > > > > > > > > S3FileIO > > > > > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is accessed via S3FileIO means we should > > > > probably > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the full set of FileIO properties just in > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is fine for different > > > > > > > > > PolarisStorageIntegration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to produce the same kind of > > > > StorageAccessConfig (S3 > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > case) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause S3FileIO to be used by clients > > > (including > > > > > > > > Polaris' > > > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > access > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > paths). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in StorageTypeFileIO in [1] look > a > > > bit > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if this code could be refactored to avoid > > > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > types completely.... but TBH, I did not > > look > > > > too > > > > > > > deeply > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anticipating future PRs for this in the > > > Polaris > > > > > > repo, > > > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ask > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate Python code changes from java > > > changes > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > areas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usually > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attract different reviewers :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my POV, management API and matching > > java > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR. I'd say docs should come later (to > keep > > > PRs > > > > > > > small). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All in all, thank you again and I hope > this > > > > > > > > contribution > > > > > > > > > > > lands > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/deepdishgary/polaris/pull/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 1:52 PM > > Jean-Baptiste > > > > > > Onofré > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Austen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice discussion! Thanks for that, and > > > welcome > > > > > > > aboard > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it makes sense to have R2 built > > > > under the > > > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > > S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration. It matches how Polaris > is > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > structured: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StorageType is keyed on the URI scheme > > > > (s3://, > > > > > > > > s3a://), > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AwsStorageConfigurationInfo already > > carries > > > > > > > endpoint, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stsEndpoint, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pathStyleAccess and, importantly, an > > > > > > stsUnavailable > > > > > > > > > flag. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what you need is largely there > > already: > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 is essentially "S3 compatible store > > > where > > > > STS > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > unavailable, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a way to actually vend credentials in > > that > > > > case". > > > > > > > > Going > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > route > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also keeps this work "isolated" from > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > FileIO-per-storage-type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The interesting design question is a > > > > pluggable > > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > path > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for S3 compatible stores when STS is > not > > > > > > available, > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cloudflare's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > local signing as the first concrete > > > > > > implementation, > > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific code. It would be good to > sketch > > > how > > > > > > MinIO > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > slot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same config fields before the > vending > > > > path > > > > > > > > hardens > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we have to check if > Cloudflare > > > > account > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really need dedicated config fields, or > > can > > > > we > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > endpoint > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (with documentation)? Keeping the > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > surface > > > > > > > > > > > > minimal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help the design generalize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would love to discuss two things: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Polaris shipping a Cloudflare API > > token > > > > and > > > > > > > > locally > > > > > > > > > > > > minting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scoped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentials makes it effectively an STS > > for > > > > R2, > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > increases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blast radius of a server compromise. > Your > > > > "reject > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boarden" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handling of unrepresentable scopes is > the > > > > right > > > > > > > call. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The PyIceberg/DuckDB/Java results > are > > > > > > promising. > > > > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > > > > > > > curious > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spark or Trino. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We love small, well-scoped PRs. I would > > > > suggest > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config and the management API as first > > > > shoot, and > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the credential vending implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 8:18 PM Austen > > Tomek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m Austen Tomek from Chicago Trading > > > > Company. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iceberg catalogs and we're evaluating > > > > Cloudflare > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > object > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > store > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no egress fees make it a very > compelling > > > > > > product). > > > > > > > > I’d > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing R2 support and credential > > > > vending to > > > > > > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getting feedback before opening a > > > > > > ready-for-review > > > > > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > > > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first contribution, so trying to do > this > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 exposes S3-compatible APIs but it > > does > > > > not > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > AWS > > > > > > > > > > > > > STS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cloudflare instead supports these > > > > short-lived, > > > > > > > scoped > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentials > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by locally signed JWT with the server > > > > holding the > > > > > > > > > parent > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > token > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This allows us to retain Polaris’s > > > > authorization > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential-vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model while storing our table data in > R2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a prototype with the following > > > > design: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An opt-in R2 storage type, with > catalog > > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identifying > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cloudflare account and optional > > > jurisdiction. > > > > > > > Parent > > > > > > > > > > > > > credentials > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > server configuration and can be > selected > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > > storageName. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Local credential generation using > > > > Cloudflare’s > > > > > > > > > > documented > > > > > > > > > > > > > > format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Credentials expire, are restricted to > one > > > > bucket, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > carry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prefix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > access scopes derived from Polaris’s > > > location > > > > > > > grants. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaris’s existing credential cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Credentials returned through the > > existing > > > > > > Iceberg > > > > > > > > > REST > > > > > > > > > > > > > vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s3.* properties, including the > endpoint, > > > > session > > > > > > > > token, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expiry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Compatible clients use their existing > S3 > > > > FileIO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conservative handling of scopes the > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > represent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cross-bucket and mixed read/write > grants > > > are > > > > > > > rejected > > > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broadened. R2 is excluded from the > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported-storage-types > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main design questions I feel this > > > runs > > > > > > into: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should this be a distinct storage > type > > > or a > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential-vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > selected through the existing S3 > > > > configuration? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I chose a separate type because the > > > > identity, > > > > > > > > > > credential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scoping model differ from AWS STS, as > > this > > > > seemed > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a draft preview PR against > my > > > fork > > > > > > [2], > > > > > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, management API changes, > > CLI > > > > > > > support, > > > > > > > > > > tests, > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation. It also discloses the AI > > > > > > assistance > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation. I leaned heavily on > Fable > > > > 5.1 for > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to be upfront about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are running the implementation in > a > > > > > > > > non-production > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now as a POC. Validation includes live > R2 > > > > > > > > reads/writes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > multipart > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operations, negative scope-boundary > > tests, > > > > our > > > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > > > > > Python > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regression matrix, and credential > > > > > > rotation/recovery > > > > > > > > > > > > exercises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI workflow has passed on the fork. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The change also encounters the > existing > > > > > > > assumption > > > > > > > > > > that a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FileIO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation identifies exactly one > > > storage > > > > > > type: > > > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > > S3 > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3FileIO. This overlaps with #4486 [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d particularly appreciate feedback > > on: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should R2 have its own storage > > > > > > > configuration/type, > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-STS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vending be modeled within the existing > S3 > > > > > > > > integration? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the local-signing approach fit > > > > Polaris’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential-vending > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any additional constraints or > validations > > > > > > > necessary? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you prefer the shared FileIO > > > > validation > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > land > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separately, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and how should we sequence the > management > > > > API and > > > > > > > R2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy to adapt the design and split > > the > > > > > > > > > contribution > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs. Wanted to start the discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Austen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/api/s3/temporary-credentials/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > https://github.com/deepdishgary/polaris/pull/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/4486 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Mac< > > > > > > > > https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any > > > > attached > > > > > > > files > > > > > > > > > > > contain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended for the exclusive use of the > > > > individual > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > entity > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > addressed and may contain information > > that > > > is > > > > > > > > > > proprietary, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or exempt from disclosure under > > > > applicable > > > > > > law. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, you are hereby > > notified > > > > that > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > viewing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copying, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disclosure or distribution of this > > > > information > > > > > > may > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > subject > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > restriction or sanction. Please notify > > the > > > > > > sender, > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > electronic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > telephone, of any unintended recipients > > and > > > > > > delete > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > original > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without making any copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any attached > > > files > > > > > > > contain > > > > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended for the exclusive use of the > > individual > > > or > > > > > > > entity > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > whom > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > addressed and may contain information that is > > > > > > > proprietary, > > > > > > > > > > > > > confidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or exempt from disclosure under > applicable > > > > law. If > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that > > > > any > > > > > > > > viewing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > copying, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disclosure or distribution of this > information > > > may > > > > be > > > > > > > > subject > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > restriction or sanction. Please notify the > > > sender, > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > electronic > > > > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > telephone, of any unintended recipients and > > > delete > > > > the > > > > > > > > > original > > > > > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without making any copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any attached files > > > > contain > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended for the exclusive use of the individual or > > > > entity to > > > > > > > > whom > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > addressed and may contain information that is > > > > proprietary, > > > > > > > > > > confidential > > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > > If > > > > you > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any > > > > viewing, > > > > > > > > > > copying, > > > > > > > > > > > > > disclosure or distribution of this information may > be > > > > subject > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, > by > > > > > > > electronic > > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete > > the > > > > > > original > > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > without making any copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any attached files > > > contain > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > intended for the exclusive use of the individual or > > > entity > > > > to > > > > > > > whom > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > addressed and may contain information that is > > > proprietary, > > > > > > > > > confidential > > > > > > > > > > > > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > If > > > you > > > > are > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > > > > viewing, > > > > > > > > > copying, > > > > > > > > > > > > disclosure or distribution of this information may be > > > > subject > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > > > > restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by > > > > > > electronic > > > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete > the > > > > original > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > without making any copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any attached files > contain > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > intended for the exclusive use of the individual or > entity > > to > > > > whom > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > addressed and may contain information that is > proprietary, > > > > > > > confidential > > > > > > > > > > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If > you > > > are > > > > not > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > > viewing, > > > > > > > copying, > > > > > > > > > > disclosure or distribution of this information may be > > subject > > > > to > > > > > > > legal > > > > > > > > > > restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by > > > > electronic > > > > > > mail > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the > > > original > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > without making any copies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information > > intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is > > addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential > > and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, > > disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal > > restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or > > telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message > > without making any copies. > > > This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies.
