-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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> +1 (non binding) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Regards >>> > > >> JB >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:33 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> >>
