+1 (binding) On Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 2:55 PM Andrei Tserakhau via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > вт, 28 июл. 2026 г., 20:44 Prashant Singh <[email protected]>: > >> +1, thank you for all the work and patience Alex >> >> Thanks, >> Prashant >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 10:17 AM Russell Spitzer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 4:03 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Please take a minute to vote on this spec change. >>>> >>>> Casting my own vote: +1 (non-binding). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:49 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > I'd like to start a vote to formalize remote signing configuration in >>>> > the REST spec. >>>> > >>>> > The proposed changes introduce a new RemoteSigningConfig object in the >>>> > LoadTableResult schema, containing properties and headers that signers >>>> > should send back to the signing endpoint. >>>> > >>>> > The spec changes are in this PR: >>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/16822 >>>> > >>>> > Relevant discussions: >>>> > >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/gz5nm2xzlhzbc2y3sfossgflnkbm6vq5 >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/krvmczlbwpbn08c45w1dtvr5tor6ol1y >>>> > >>>> > Many thanks to everyone who provided feedback! >>>> > >>>> > Please vote in the next 72 hours: >>>> > >>>> > [ ] +1: Adopt the remote signing configuration changes >>>> > [ ] +0: . . . >>>> > [ ] -1: Do not adopt the remote signing configuration changes because >>>> . . . >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > Alex >>>> >>>
