Thanks a lot for working on it, Alex. I think it's ready to open a vote. Yufei
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 4:47 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > The PR to promote the signer endpoint to the main specification has > now received 3 approvals [1]. A big thank you to Eduard, Prashant and > Steve for their thorough reviews! > > With these approvals in hand, is this the right time to start a VOTE > thread, or should we wait a bit longer to gather more input and > reviews? > > Thanks, > Alex > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15112 > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 5:26 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > The PR is up for review: > > > > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15112 > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 6:49 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A VOTE for REST spec updates usually happens after the changes are > available to review. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:39 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Thank you all! > > >> > > >> I think we have an agreement here. I'm happy to start working on the > > >> PR, but I recall that a VOTE thread is necessary for this type of > > >> modification. Should we initiate the vote now, or wait until the PR is > > >> ready for merging (and vote on the PR contents)? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Alex > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:08 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > +1 from me. > > >> > Promoting the signer endpoint to the table level makes it more > consistent with other table scoped APIs, and it cleanly provides the > catalog(warehouse), namespace and table context without relying on provider > specific properties. > > >> > > > >> > Yufei > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:08 PM Christian Thiel < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> +1 from me too, thanks Alex! > > >> >> I tested returning the new Endpoint as the `s3.signer.endpoint` > config of a LoadTableResult against all Iceberg Releases from 1.6.1 with > Spark as well as pyiceberg 0.9 and 0.10 without problems. As long as the > behaviour of the Endpoint stays the same for S3, I don't see any issues. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 18:43, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> +1 > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Regards > > >> >>> JB > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 3:29 PM Alexandre Dutra < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Hi all, > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> We discussed remote signing last Wednesday during the catalog > sync > > >> >>>> meeting and we all agreed that the default signing endpoint [1] > is too > > >> >>>> rigid. It lacks information about the table and namespace, but > is also > > >> >>>> unaware of catalogs/warehouses, which can be challenging when > the same > > >> >>>> signer client has to access multiple catalogs. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> One of the ideas that emerged was to promote the signer endpoint > to > > >> >>>> the "top-level" spec, under the table path. In short, it would > become > > >> >>>> something like this: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables/{table}/sign > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Promoting the endpoint makes it more aligned with similar ones, > like > > >> >>>> the table credentials endpoint. It also solves the problem of > passing > > >> >>>> the namespace, table and warehouse identifiers to the server. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> The endpoint would become provider-agnostic though. The current > > >> >>>> endpoint structure appears to be sufficiently generic, showing no > > >> >>>> S3-specific quirks. For example, implementing Azure support > using SAS > > >> >>>> tokens seems feasible at first glance without any apparent > obstacles > > >> >>>> (that I could think of). But there might be implications that > I'm not > > >> >>>> immediately seeing. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Of course, we would need to migrate the existing table > properties to > > >> >>>> more neutral names, e.g.: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> s3.signer.uri -> signer.uri > > >> >>>> s3.signer.endpoint -> signer.endpoint > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> What are your thoughts on this idea? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Thanks, > > >> >>>> Alex > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> [1]: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/55bfc7e82d03b5038bc5d0da852bd16615486926/aws/src/main/resources/s3-signer-open-api.yaml#L61 >
