On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, at 13:01, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Just a couple questions. > > 1. I think we discussed that we would do a lazy version bump of all > protocols in order to get flexible version support. Can you add that to the > KIP?
Good point. Added. > 2. The doc mentions a bump to the request and response header formats to > version 1. Currently there is no formal header version. It wasn't clear to > me if you were suggesting that we create a header version as part of the > schema or if this was just an informal way to refer to the header in > "flexible version" requests. Can you clarify? I think we should have a formal header version. However, we can deduce which header version we should use based on the apiKey and apiVersion, so no changes will be needed to what is sent over the wire. Having a new header version will let us add new fields to request and response headers. In particular, having a flexible header version will let us add tagged fields, which will be useful for adding things like a message traceID. As another example, ThrottleTimeMs would have made more sense in the response header than as an addition to every message. cheers, Colin > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:14 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 binding. > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Colin! > > > > -David > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:40 AM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> > > wrote: > > > > > LGTM. +1 (binding) > > > -Harsha > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 1:46 AM, Satish Duggana < > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) Thanks for the nice KIP. > > > > > > > > You may want to update the KIP saying that optional tagged fields do > > not > > > > support complex types(or structs). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:43 AM Jose Armando Garcia Sancio > > > > <jsan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > Looking forward to this improvement. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:49 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > Thank for the KIP. Great addition to the Kafka protocol! > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > David > > > > > > > > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 19:17, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> a > > écrit > > > : > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-482: The Kafka Protocol should > > Support > > > > Optional Tagged Fields. > > > > > > > > KIP: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > > KIP-482%3A+The+Kafka+Protocol+should+Support+Optional+Tagged+Fields > > > > > > > > Discussion thread here: > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > cdc801ae886491b73ef7efecac7ef81b24382f8b6b025899ee343f7a@%3Cdev.kafka. > > > > apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > best, > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -Jose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Arthur > > >
