+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 11:18 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 10:26 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 10:17 AM Zheng Hu via dev <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> btw, I left few comments in the PR >>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17727, and seems like there are >>> few CVE scanining failures, are we blocking on that ? >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 8:26 AM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 3:18 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 12:29 AM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Szehon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 2:44 PM Jones, Danny via dev < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for driving standardization here! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Danny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Reply to: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, 5 October 2026 at 22:31 >>>>>>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Subject: *RE: [EXTERNAL] [VOTE] Recommend a standard User-Agent >>>>>>> format for REST clients [REOPEN] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. >>>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender >>>>>>> and know the content is safe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 15:23 rahul mahadev <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reopning voting after going through reviews from @adutra] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Following the discussion thread [1], I'd like to call a vote on >>>>>>> standardizing the client User-Agent format in the REST catalog spec. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a +1 endorses: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Clients identify themselves with the standard HTTP User-Agent >>>>>>> header >>>>>>> (RFC 7231): whitespace-separated product/version tokens, most >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> first (engine, then any integration or connector, then the Iceberg >>>>>>> library, then the runtime), with an optional parenthesized comment >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> extra context. Example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Spark/4.0.0 iceberg-spark/1.9.0 iceberg-java/1.9.0 (scala >>>>>>> 2.13.16) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - When the header is sent, the Iceberg library token (iceberg-java, >>>>>>> pyiceberg, iceberg-rust, iceberg-go) must be present. >>>>>>> - The header is advisory. Servers must not reject a request just >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> it is missing or malformed, and must not use it for authentication. >>>>>>> Servers may refuse operations from client versions known to be >>>>>>> unsafe. >>>>>>> It is not a capability negotiation mechanism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The spec change is in PR [2]. If the vote passes, the follow-ups are >>>>>>> conforming the client libraries (java, python, rust, go) to emit this >>>>>>> format. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Adopt this User-Agent format in the REST spec >>>>>>> [ ] 0 >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not adopt (please explain) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Rahul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6hkx66o8qc1lolh11l1lmswxlq0bpj9 >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/17727 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- John Zhuge
