Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Thank you Steven! It's exciting to see this feature moving forward!

Alex

On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:39 PM Steven Wu  wrote:
>
> my +1 too
>
> We can consider this vote successful. I just merged the PR.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:23 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ryan!
>>
>> With that, is it necessary to start a new vote or can we consider this
>> one as successful?
>>
>> I'm counting so far:
>>
>> - 5 binding +1s: Eduard, Matt, Prashant, Daniel, Ryan
>> - 5 non-binding +1s: Dmitri, Christian, Ajantha, JB and myself.
>> - No -1s
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 8:23 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, this look better now so I'll update my vote to +1.
>> >
>> > Thanks, Alex!
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:37 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Ryan,
>> >>
>> >> That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of
>> >> the Java library and the associated removal timeline.
>> >>
>> >> Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with 
>> >> > supported endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if 
>> >> > the catalog supports signing through this new path or should default to 
>> >> > the old behavior.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the 
>> >> > removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).
>> >> >
>> >> > -Dan
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the 
>> >> >> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now 
>> >> >> references the Java library versions and states that support will be 
>> >> >> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions 
>> >> >> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear 
>> >> >> how we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the 
>> >> >> solution is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a 
>> >> >> summary of the discussion where we decided to deprecate this so 
>> >> >> quickly? I thought that there were projects that implement remote 
>> >> >> signing, so how can we expect people to move in a Java minor release 
>> >> >> timeframe? What is the plan for falling back to the old API and for 
>> >> >> how long?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks  
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we 
>> >> >>> should probably just start a new vote.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -Dan
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner 
>> >> >>>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>  +1
>> >> 
>> >>  On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra  
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
>> >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Alex
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi all,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > FYI the required changes were implemented:
>> >> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Alex
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>> >> > >  wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi all,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
>> >> > > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're 
>> >> > > > ready.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > Alex
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
>> >> > > >  wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We 
>> >> > > > > introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I 
>> >> > > > > strongly oppose codifying in the spec.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing 
>> >> > > > > portion of the spec without a spec change and is 
>> >> > > > > unnecessarily strict.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't 
>> >> > > > > support this change until we remove that.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -Dan
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>> >> > > > >  wrote:
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> +1 (non bind

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Steven Wu]

my +1 too

We can consider this vote successful. I just merged the PR.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:23 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Thanks Ryan!
>
> With that, is it necessary to start a new vote or can we consider this
> one as successful?
>
> I'm counting so far:
>
> - 5 binding +1s: Eduard, Matt, Prashant, Daniel, Ryan
> - 5 non-binding +1s: Dmitri, Christian, Ajantha, JB and myself.
> - No -1s
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 8:23 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, this look better now so I'll update my vote to +1.
> >
> > Thanks, Alex!
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:37 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ryan,
> >>
> >> That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of
> >> the Java library and the associated removal timeline.
> >>
> >> Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with
> supported endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if the
> catalog supports signing through this new path or should default to the old
> behavior.
> >> >
> >> > I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the
> removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).
> >> >
> >> > -Dan
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> -0
> >> >>
> >> >> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the
> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now
> references the Java library versions and states that support will be
> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions
> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear how
> we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the solution
> is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a summary of the
> discussion where we decided to deprecate this so quickly? I thought that
> there were projects that implement remote signing, so how can we expect
> people to move in a Java minor release timeframe? What is the plan for
> falling back to the old API and for how long?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes,
> we should probably just start a new vote.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Dan
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>  +1
> >> 
> >>  On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
> >> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Alex
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > FYI the required changes were implemented:
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Alex
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra <
> adu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare
> the
> >> > > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're
> ready.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Alex
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks <
> dwe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.
> We introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
> oppose codifying in the spec.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing
> portion of the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't
> support this change until we remove that.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Dan
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Regards
> >> > > > >> JB
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra <
> adu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> Hi all,
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the
> promotion of the
> >> > > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> Related links:
> >> >

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Thanks Ryan!

With that, is it necessary to start a new vote or can we consider this
one as successful?

I'm counting so far:

- 5 binding +1s: Eduard, Matt, Prashant, Daniel, Ryan
- 5 non-binding +1s: Dmitri, Christian, Ajantha, JB and myself.
- No -1s

Thanks,
Alex

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 8:23 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>
> Yes, this look better now so I'll update my vote to +1.
>
> Thanks, Alex!
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:37 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of
>> the Java library and the associated removal timeline.
>>
>> Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>> >
>> > For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with 
>> > supported endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if the 
>> > catalog supports signing through this new path or should default to the 
>> > old behavior.
>> >
>> > I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the 
>> > removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).
>> >
>> > -Dan
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -0
>> >>
>> >> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the 
>> >> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now 
>> >> references the Java library versions and states that support will be 
>> >> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions 
>> >> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear 
>> >> how we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the 
>> >> solution is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a summary 
>> >> of the discussion where we decided to deprecate this so quickly? I 
>> >> thought that there were projects that implement remote signing, so how 
>> >> can we expect people to move in a Java minor release timeframe? What is 
>> >> the plan for falling back to the old API and for how long?
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
>> >>>
>> >>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we 
>> >>> should probably just start a new vote.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Dan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner 
>> >>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  +1
>> 
>>  On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra  
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alex
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > FYI the required changes were implemented:
>> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Alex
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra  
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
>> > > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Alex
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks  
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We 
>> > > > > introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I 
>> > > > > strongly oppose codifying in the spec.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion 
>> > > > > of the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support 
>> > > > > this change until we remove that.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Dan
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>> > > > >  wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Regards
>> > > > >> JB
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>> > > > >>  wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Hi all,
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion 
>> > > > >>> of the
>> > > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Related links:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> ML thread: 
>> > > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> > > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Ryan Blue]

Yes, this look better now so I'll update my vote to +1.

Thanks, Alex!

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:37 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of
> the Java library and the associated removal timeline.
>
> Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
> >
> > For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with
> supported endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if the
> catalog supports signing through this new path or should default to the old
> behavior.
> >
> > I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the
> removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
> >>
> >> -0
> >>
> >> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the
> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now
> references the Java library versions and states that support will be
> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions
> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear how
> we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the solution
> is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a summary of the
> discussion where we decided to deprecate this so quickly? I thought that
> there were projects that implement remote signing, so how can we expect
> people to move in a Java minor release timeframe? What is the plan for
> falling back to the old API and for how long?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
> >>>
> >>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we
> should probably just start a new vote.
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>  +1
> 
>  On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > FYI the required changes were implemented:
> > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
> > > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> > > > >
> > > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We
> introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
> oppose codifying in the spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing
> portion of the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> > > > >
> > > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support
> this change until we remove that.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards
> > > > >> JB
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra <
> adu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the
> promotion of the
> > > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Related links:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ML thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> > > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to
> the main REST spec
> > > > >>> [ ] +0
> > > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Alex
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Hi Ryan,

That's a fair point, I've updated the spec to remove the mention of
the Java library and the associated removal timeline.

Does this address your concerns enough for you to reconsider your vote?

Thanks,
Alex

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:42 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>
> For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with supported 
> endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if the catalog 
> supports signing through this new path or should default to the old behavior.
>
> I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the removal 
> timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).
>
> -Dan
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:
>>
>> -0
>>
>> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the changes 
>> to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now references the 
>> Java library versions and states that support will be removed in 1.12.0. I 
>> think it should be independent from Java versions since the REST spec is not 
>> tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear how we want to handle this with 
>> secondary specs, but I doubt that the solution is to rely on Java library 
>> versions. Second, is there a summary of the discussion where we decided to 
>> deprecate this so quickly? I thought that there were projects that implement 
>> remote signing, so how can we expect people to move in a Java minor release 
>> timeframe? What is the plan for falling back to the old API and for how long?
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>>>
>>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
>>>
>>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we should 
>>> probably just start a new vote.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner 
>>>  wrote:

 +1

 On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > FYI the required changes were implemented:
> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
> > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> > > >
> > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We 
> > > > introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I 
> > > > strongly oppose codifying in the spec.
> > > >
> > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of 
> > > > the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> > > >
> > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this 
> > > > change until we remove that.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> JB
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of 
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Related links:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ML thread: 
> > > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the 
> > > >>> main REST spec
> > > >>> [ ] +0
> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Alex

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Daniel Weeks]

For migration purposes, this new endpoint should be included with supported
endpoints config response, so newer clients should know if the catalog
supports signing through this new path or should default to the old
behavior.

I think deprecating the old spec is fine (though agree that maybe the
removal timeline should be reconsidered or simply removed).

-Dan

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:32 PM Ryan Blue  wrote:

> -0
>
> I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the
> changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now
> references the Java library versions and states that support will be
> removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions
> since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear how
> we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the solution
> is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a summary of the
> discussion where we decided to deprecate this so quickly? I thought that
> there were projects that implement remote signing, so how can we expect
> people to move in a Java minor release timeframe? What is the plan for
> falling back to the old API and for how long?
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>
>> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
>>
>> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we
>> should probably just start a new vote.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
>> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
 https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450

 Thanks,
 Alex

 On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra 
 wrote:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 > FYI the required changes were implemented:
 > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Alex
 >
 > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
 wrote:
 > >
 > > Hi all,
 > >
 > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
 > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
 > >
 > > Thanks,
 > > Alex
 > >
 > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
 wrote:
 > > >
 > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
 > > >
 > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We
 introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
 oppose codifying in the spec.
 > > >
 > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion
 of the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
 > > >
 > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support
 this change until we remove that.
 > > >
 > > > -Dan
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >
 > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
 j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
 > > >>
 > > >> +1 (non binding)
 > > >>
 > > >> Regards
 > > >> JB
 > > >>
 > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra <
 adu...@apache.org> wrote:
 > > >>>
 > > >>> Hi all,
 > > >>>
 > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion
 of the
 > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
 > > >>>
 > > >>> Related links:
 > > >>>
 > > >>> ML thread:
 https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
 > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
 > > >>>
 > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
 > > >>>
 > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to
 the main REST spec
 > > >>> [ ] +0
 > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
 > > >>>
 > > >>> Thanks,
 > > >>> Alex

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Ryan Blue]

-0

I think the addition to the REST spec is fine, but I don't think the
changes to the old signer spec are correct. First, the old spec now
references the Java library versions and states that support will be
removed in 1.12.0. I think it should be independent from Java versions
since the REST spec is not tied to Java releases -- it's a bit unclear how
we want to handle this with secondary specs, but I doubt that the solution
is to rely on Java library versions. Second, is there a summary of the
discussion where we decided to deprecate this so quickly? I thought that
there were projects that implement remote signing, so how can we expect
people to move in a Java minor release timeframe? What is the plan for
falling back to the old API and for how long?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:

> With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1
>
> I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we
> should probably just start a new vote.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > FYI the required changes were implemented:
>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Alex
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi all,
>>> > >
>>> > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
>>> > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > > Alex
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We
>>> introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
>>> oppose codifying in the spec.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of
>>> the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support
>>> this change until we remove that.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -Dan
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> +1 (non binding)
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Regards
>>> > > >> JB
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> Hi all,
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of
>>> the
>>> > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> Related links:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> ML thread:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>>> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the
>>> main REST spec
>>> > > >>> [ ] +0
>>> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> Thanks,
>>> > > >>> Alex
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Daniel Weeks]

With the updates, I'm changing my vote to +1

I believe the vote was already called, so for procedure purposes, we should
probably just start a new vote.

-Dan

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 9:39 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > FYI the required changes were implemented:
>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alex
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
>> > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Alex
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
>> > > >
>> > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We
>> introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
>> oppose codifying in the spec.
>> > > >
>> > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of
>> the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
>> > > >
>> > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this
>> change until we remove that.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Dan
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> +1 (non binding)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Regards
>> > > >> JB
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Hi all,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of
>> the
>> > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Related links:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ML thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the
>> main REST spec
>> > > >>> [ ] +0
>> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > >>> Alex
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Eduard Tudenhöfner]

+1

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > FYI the required changes were implemented:
> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
> > > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> > > >
> > > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We
> introduced an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly
> oppose codifying in the spec.
> > > >
> > > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of
> the spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> > > >
> > > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this
> change until we remove that.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> JB
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of
> the
> > > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Related links:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ML thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the
> main REST spec
> > > >>> [ ] +0
> > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Alex
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Hi all,

Gentle reminder to review the revised spec changes:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450

Thanks,
Alex

On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 5:21 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> FYI the required changes were implemented:
> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
> > requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
> > >
> > > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> > >
> > > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We introduced 
> > > an explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly oppose 
> > > codifying in the spec.
> > >
> > > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of the 
> > > spec without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> > >
> > > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this 
> > > change until we remove that.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 (non binding)
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> JB
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
> > >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> > >>>
> > >>> Related links:
> > >>>
> > >>> ML thread: 
> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> > >>>
> > >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
> > >>>
> > >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main 
> > >>> REST spec
> > >>> [ ] +0
> > >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Alex

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Hi all,

FYI the required changes were implemented:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450

Thanks,
Alex

On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:49 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
> requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
> >
> > -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
> >
> > I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We introduced an 
> > explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly oppose codifying 
> > in the spec.
> >
> > That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of the spec 
> > without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
> >
> > This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this change 
> > until we remove that.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 (non binding)
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
> >>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
> >>>
> >>> Related links:
> >>>
> >>> ML thread: 
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
> >>>
> >>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main 
> >>> REST spec
> >>> [ ] +0
> >>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Alex

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Hi all,

With one binding -1, the vote does not pass. I will prepare the
requested changes and start another vote thread when we're ready.

Thanks,
Alex

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:12 PM Daniel Weeks  wrote:
>
> -1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)
>
> I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We introduced an 
> explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly oppose codifying in 
> the spec.
>
> That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of the spec 
> without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.
>
> This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this change 
> until we remove that.
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>>
>> +1 (non binding)
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>>
>>> Related links:
>>>
>>> ML thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>>
>>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main REST 
>>> spec
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Daniel Weeks]

-1 (but I think we can address the concern easily)

I just added a comment to the PR that's a blocker for me.  We introduced an
explicit enumeration of cloud providers which I strongly oppose codifying
in the spec.

That limits other providers from leveraging the signing portion of the spec
without a spec change and is unnecessarily strict.

This should be a simple update to address, but I can't support this change
until we remove that.

-Dan



On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

> +1 (non binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>
>> Related links:
>>
>> ML thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>
>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
>> REST spec
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1 (non binding)

Regards
JB

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>
> Related links:
>
> ML thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main REST
> spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Prashant Singh]

+1 , thank you Alex !

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:30 AM Ajantha Bhat  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> - Ajantha
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:05 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> Casting my own vote: +1 (nb)
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM Christian Thiel <
>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> Thanks!
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Eduard Tudenhöfner  schrieb am Mo. 2. März
>>> 2026 um 16:55:
>>>
 +1

 On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
 dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>
>> Related links:
>>
>> ML thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>
>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
>> REST spec
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>
>
> --
> Dmitri Bourlatchkov
> Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
> Dremio.com
> 
>  /
> Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
> Started 
>
>
> The Agentic Lakehouse
> The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Matt Topol]

+1 (binding)

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 5:32 AM Ajantha Bhat  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - Ajantha
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:05 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> Casting my own vote: +1 (nb)
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM Christian Thiel <
>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> Thanks!
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Eduard Tudenhöfner  schrieb am Mo. 2. März
>>> 2026 um 16:55:
>>>
 +1

 On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
 dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>
>> Related links:
>>
>> ML thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>
>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
>> REST spec
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>
>
> --
> Dmitri Bourlatchkov
> Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
> Dremio.com
> 
>  /
> Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
> Started 
>
>
> The Agentic Lakehouse
> The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Ajantha Bhat]

+1 (non-binding)

- Ajantha

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:05 PM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Casting my own vote: +1 (nb)
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM Christian Thiel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> Thanks!
>> Christian
>>
>> Eduard Tudenhöfner  schrieb am Mo. 2. März
>> 2026 um 16:55:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
>>> dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1 (non-binding)

 Cheers,
 Dmitri.

 On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
 wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>
> Related links:
>
> ML thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
> REST spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>


 --
 Dmitri Bourlatchkov
 Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
 Dremio.com
 
  /
 Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
 Started 


 The Agentic Lakehouse
 The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Casting my own vote: +1 (nb)

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM Christian Thiel 
wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
> Thanks!
> Christian
>
> Eduard Tudenhöfner  schrieb am Mo. 2. März 2026
> um 16:55:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
>> dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dmitri.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
 remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.

 Related links:

 ML thread:
 https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
 PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450

 Please vote within the next 72 hours.

 [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
 REST spec
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why

 Thanks,
 Alex

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dmitri Bourlatchkov
>>> Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
>>> Dremio.com
>>> 
>>>  /
>>> Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
>>> Started 
>>>
>>>
>>> The Agentic Lakehouse
>>> The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Christian Thiel]

+1 (non-binding)
Thanks!
Christian

Eduard Tudenhöfner  schrieb am Mo. 2. März 2026
um 16:55:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
> dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dmitri.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>>
>>> Related links:
>>>
>>> ML thread:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>>
>>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
>>> REST spec
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dmitri Bourlatchkov
>> Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
>> Dremio.com
>> 
>>  /
>> Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
>> Started 
>>
>>
>> The Agentic Lakehouse
>> The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents
>>
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Eduard Tudenhöfner]

+1

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 4:39 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <
dmitri.bourlatch...@dremio.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitri.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
>> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>>
>> Related links:
>>
>> ML thread:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>>
>> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main
>> REST spec
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>
>
> --
> Dmitri Bourlatchkov
> Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
> Dremio.com
> 
>  /
> Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
> Started 
>
>
> The Agentic Lakehouse
> The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Dmitri Bourlatchkov]

+1 (non-binding)

Cheers,
Dmitri.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
> remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.
>
> Related links:
>
> ML thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450
>
> Please vote within the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main REST
> spec
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>


-- 
Dmitri Bourlatchkov
Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio
Dremio.com

/
Follow Us on LinkedIn  / Get
Started 


The Agentic Lakehouse
The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents

[VOTE] Promote the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec (attempt #2)

[Alexandre Dutra]

Hi all,

This is a second vote attempt in order to adopt the promotion of the
remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec.

Related links:

ML thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/2kqdqb46j7jww36wwg4txv6pl2hqq9w7
PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15450

Please vote within the next 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Adopt the promotion of the remote signing endpoint to the main REST spec
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 Do not adopt, please explain why

Thanks,
Alex