Hi Jun,
Thanks for the feedback! I have addressed the comments in the KIP.
> 200. In the validation section, there is still the text "*from*
> {"max_version_level":
> X} *to* {"max_version_level": X’}". It seems that it should say "from X to
> Y"?
(Kowshik): Done. I have reworded it a bit to make it clearer now in this
section:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Validations
> 110. Could we add that we need to document the bumped version of each
> feature in the upgrade section of a release?
(Kowshik): Great point! Done, I have mentioned it in #3 this section:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584>
%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584>
:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Whentouseversionedfeatureflags?
Cheers,
Kowshik
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:00 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Kowshik,
>
> Looks good to me now. Just a couple of minor things below.
>
> 200. In the validation section, there is still the text "*from*
> {"max_version_level":
> X} *to* {"max_version_level": X’}". It seems that it should say "from X to
> Y"?
>
> 110. Could we add that we need to document the bumped version of each
> feature in the upgrade section of a release?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:08 PM Kowshik Prakasam <kpraka...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jun,
> >
> > Thank you for the suggestion! I have updated the KIP, please find my
> > response below.
> >
> > > 200. I guess you are saying only when the allowDowngrade field is set,
> > the
> > > finalized feature version can go backward. Otherwise, it can only go
> up.
> > > That makes sense. It would be useful to make that clear when explaining
> > > the usage of the allowDowngrade field. In the validation section, we
> > have "
> > > /features' from {"max_version_level": X} to {"max_version_level": X’}",
> > it
> > > seems that we need to mention Y there.
> >
> > (Kowshik): Great point! Yes, that is correct. Done, I have updated the
> > validations
> > section explaining the above. Here is a link to this section:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Validations
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kowshik
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:05 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > >
> > > 200. I guess you are saying only when the allowDowngrade field is set,
> > the
> > > finalized feature version can go backward. Otherwise, it can only go
> up.
> > > That makes sense. It would be useful to make that clear when explaining
> > > the usage of the allowDowngrade field. In the validation section, we
> have
> > > "
> > > /features' from {"max_version_level": X} to {"max_version_level": X’}",
> > it
> > > seems that we need to mention Y there.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:44 AM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > kpraka...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jun,
> > > >
> > > > Great question! Please find my response below.
> > > >
> > > > > 200. My understanding is that If the CLI tool passes the
> > > > > '--allow-downgrade' flag when updating a specific feature, then a
> > > future
> > > > > downgrade is possible. Otherwise, the feature is now downgradable.
> If
> > > so,
> > > > I
> > > > > was wondering how the controller remembers this since it can be
> > > restarted
> > > > > over time?
> > > >
> > > > (Kowshik): The purpose of the flag was to just restrict the user
> intent
> > > for
> > > > a specific request.
> > > > It seems to me that to avoid confusion, I could call the flag as
> > > > `--try-downgrade` instead.
> > > > Then this makes it clear, that, the controller just has to consider
> the
> > > ask
> > > > from
> > > > the user as an explicit request to attempt a downgrade.
> > > >
> > > > The flag does not act as an override on controller's decision making
> > that
> > > > decides whether
> > > > a flag is downgradable (these decisions on whether to allow a flag to
> > be
> > > > downgraded
> > > > from a specific version level, can be embedded in the controller
> code).
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know what you think.
> > > > Sorry if I misunderstood the original question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Kowshik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:40 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply. Makes sense. Just one more question.
> > > > >
> > > > > 200. My understanding is that If the CLI tool passes the
> > > > > '--allow-downgrade' flag when updating a specific feature, then a
> > > future
> > > > > downgrade is possible. Otherwise, the feature is now downgradable.
> If
> > > > so, I
> > > > > was wondering how the controller remembers this since it can be
> > > restarted
> > > > > over time?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:49 PM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > kpraka...@confluent.io
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback and the questions!
> > > > > > Please find my response below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 200. The UpdateFeaturesRequest includes an AllowDowngrade
> field.
> > It
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > that field needs to be persisted somewhere in ZK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Kowshik): Great question! Below is my explanation. Please help
> me
> > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > if you feel there are cases where we would need to still persist
> it
> > > in
> > > > > ZK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Firstly I have updated my thoughts into the KIP now, under the
> > > > > 'guidelines'
> > > > > > section:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Guidelinesonfeatureversionsandworkflows
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The allowDowngrade boolean field is just to restrict the user
> > intent,
> > > > and
> > > > > > to remind
> > > > > > them to double check their intent before proceeding. It should be
> > set
> > > > to
> > > > > > true
> > > > > > by the user in a request, only when the user intent is to
> > forcefully
> > > > > > "attempt" a
> > > > > > downgrade of a specific feature's max version level, to the
> > provided
> > > > > value
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can extend this safeguard. The controller (on it's end) can
> > > maintain
> > > > > > rules in the code, that, for safety reasons would outright reject
> > > > certain
> > > > > > downgrades
> > > > > > from a specific max_version_level for a specific feature. Such
> > > > rejections
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > happen depending on the feature being downgraded, and from what
> > > version
> > > > > > level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The CLI tool only allows a downgrade attempt in conjunction with
> > > > specific
> > > > > > flags and sub-commands. For example, in the CLI tool, if the user
> > > uses
> > > > > the
> > > > > > 'downgrade-all' command, or passes '--allow-downgrade' flag when
> > > > > updating a
> > > > > > specific feature, only then the tool will translate this ask to
> > > setting
> > > > > > 'allowDowngrade' field in the request to the server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 201. UpdateFeaturesResponse has the following top level fields.
> > > > Should
> > > > > > > those fields be per feature?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "fields": [
> > > > > > > { "name": "ErrorCode", "type": "int16", "versions": "0+",
> > > > > > > "about": "The error code, or 0 if there was no error." },
> > > > > > > { "name": "ErrorMessage", "type": "string", "versions":
> "0+",
> > > > > > > "about": "The error message, or null if there was no
> > error."
> > > }
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Kowshik): Great question!
> > > > > > As such, the API is transactional, as explained in the sections
> > > linked
> > > > > > below.
> > > > > > Either all provided FeatureUpdate was applied, or none.
> > > > > > It's the reason I felt we can have just one error code + message.
> > > > > > Happy to extend this if you feel otherwise. Please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link to sections:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-ChangestoKafkaController
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Guarantees
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 202. The /features path in ZK has a field min_version_level.
> > Which
> > > > API
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > tool can change that value?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Kowshik): Great question! Currently this cannot be modified by
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > > > API or the tool.
> > > > > > Feature version deprecation (by raising min_version_level) can be
> > > done
> > > > > only
> > > > > > by the Controller directly. The rationale is explained in this
> > > section:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Featureversiondeprecation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:33 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for addressing those comments. Just a few more minor
> > > comments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 200. The UpdateFeaturesRequest includes an AllowDowngrade
> field.
> > It
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > that field needs to be persisted somewhere in ZK?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 201. UpdateFeaturesResponse has the following top level fields.
> > > > Should
> > > > > > > those fields be per feature?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "fields": [
> > > > > > > { "name": "ErrorCode", "type": "int16", "versions": "0+",
> > > > > > > "about": "The error code, or 0 if there was no error." },
> > > > > > > { "name": "ErrorMessage", "type": "string", "versions":
> "0+",
> > > > > > > "about": "The error message, or null if there was no
> > error."
> > > }
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 202. The /features path in ZK has a field min_version_level.
> > Which
> > > > API
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > tool can change that value?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:12 PM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback! I have updated the KIP-584
> addressing
> > > your
> > > > > > > > comments.
> > > > > > > > Please find my response below.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 100.6 You can look for the sentence "This operation
> requires
> > > > ALTER
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > CLUSTER." in KIP-455. Also, you can check its usage in
> > > > > > > > > KafkaApis.authorize().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Done. Great point! For the newly introduced
> > > > > UPDATE_FEATURES
> > > > > > > api,
> > > > > > > > I have added a
> > > > > > > > requirement that AclOperation.ALTER is required on
> > > > > > ResourceType.CLUSTER.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 110. Keeping the feature version as int is probably fine. I
> > > just
> > > > > felt
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > for some of the common user interactions, it's more
> > convenient
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > relate that to a release version. For example, if a user
> > wants
> > > to
> > > > > > > > downgrade
> > > > > > > > > to a release 2.5, it's easier for the user to use the tool
> > like
> > > > > "tool
> > > > > > > > > --downgrade 2.5" instead of "tool --downgrade --feature X
> > > > --version
> > > > > > 6".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point. Generally, maximum feature version
> > levels
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > downgradable after
> > > > > > > > they are finalized in the cluster. This is because, as a
> > > guideline
> > > > > > > bumping
> > > > > > > > feature version level usually is used mainly to convey
> > important
> > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > Despite the above, there may be some extreme/rare cases
> where a
> > > > user
> > > > > > > wants
> > > > > > > > to downgrade
> > > > > > > > all features to a specific previous release. The user may
> want
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > prior to rolling back a Kafka cluster to a previous release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To support the above, I have made a change to the KIP
> > explaining
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CLI tool is versioned.
> > > > > > > > The CLI tool internally has knowledge about a map of features
> > to
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > respective max
> > > > > > > > versions supported by the Broker. The tool's knowledge of
> > > features
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > their version values,
> > > > > > > > is limited to the version of the CLI tool itself i.e. the
> > > > information
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > packaged into the CLI tool
> > > > > > > > when it is released. Whenever a Kafka release introduces a
> new
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > version, or modifies
> > > > > > > > an existing feature version, the CLI tool shall also be
> updated
> > > > with
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > information,
> > > > > > > > Newer versions of the CLI tool will be released as part of
> the
> > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > releases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Therefore, to achieve the downgrade need, the user just needs
> > to
> > > > run
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > the CLI tool that's part of the particular previous release
> > that
> > > > > he/she
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > downgrading to.
> > > > > > > > To help the user with this, there is a new command added to
> the
> > > CLI
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > called `downgrade-all`.
> > > > > > > > This essentially downgrades max version levels of all
> features
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > cluster to the versions
> > > > > > > > known to the CLI tool internally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have explained the above in the KIP under these sections:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tooling support (have explained that the CLI tool is
> > versioned):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Toolingsupport
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regular CLI tool usage (please refer to point #3, and see the
> > > > tooling
> > > > > > > > example)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-RegularCLItoolusage
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 110. Similarly, if the client library finds a feature
> > mismatch
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > broker,
> > > > > > > > > the client likely needs to log some error message for the
> > user
> > > to
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > actions. It's much more actionable if the error message is
> > > > "upgrade
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > broker to release version 2.6" than just "upgrade the
> broker
> > to
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > version 7".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Kowshik): That's a really good point! If we use ints for
> > feature
> > > > > > > versions,
> > > > > > > > the best
> > > > > > > > message that client can print for debugging is "broker
> doesn't
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > > feature version 7", and alongside that print the supported
> > > version
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > returned
> > > > > > > > by the broker. Then, does it sound reasonable that the user
> > could
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > reference
> > > > > > > > Kafka release logs to figure out which version of the broker
> > > > release
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > > be deployed, to support feature version 7? I couldn't think
> of
> > a
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > strategy here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 120. When should a developer bump up the version of a
> > feature?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great question! In the KIP, I have added a
> section:
> > > > > > > 'Guidelines
> > > > > > > > on feature versions and workflows'
> > > > > > > > providing some guidelines on when to use the versioned
> feature
> > > > flags,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > are the regular workflows with the CLI tool.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Link to the relevant sections:
> > > > > > > > Guidelines:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Guidelinesonfeatureversionsandworkflows
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regular CLI tool usage:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-RegularCLItoolusage
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Advanced CLI tool usage:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-AdvancedCLItoolusage
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:25 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 110. Keeping the feature version as int is probably fine. I
> > > just
> > > > > felt
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > for some of the common user interactions, it's more
> > convenient
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > relate that to a release version. For example, if a user
> > wants
> > > to
> > > > > > > > downgrade
> > > > > > > > > to a release 2.5, it's easier for the user to use the tool
> > like
> > > > > "tool
> > > > > > > > > --downgrade 2.5" instead of "tool --downgrade --feature X
> > > > --version
> > > > > > 6".
> > > > > > > > > Similarly, if the client library finds a feature mismatch
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > broker,
> > > > > > > > > the client likely needs to log some error message for the
> > user
> > > to
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > actions. It's much more actionable if the error message is
> > > > "upgrade
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > broker to release version 2.6" than just "upgrade the
> broker
> > to
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > version 7".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 111. Sounds good.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 120. When should a developer bump up the version of a
> > feature?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:26 AM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP for the item 111.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm in the process of addressing 100.6, and will provide
> an
> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > soon.
> > > > > > > > > > I think item 110 is still under discussion given we are
> now
> > > > > > > providing a
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > to finalize
> > > > > > > > > > all features to their latest version levels. In any case,
> > > > please
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > how you feel in response to Colin's comments on this
> topic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 111. To put this in context, when we had IBP, the
> default
> > > > value
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > current released version. So, if you are a brand new
> > user,
> > > > you
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > to configure IBP and all new features will be
> immediately
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new cluster. If you are upgrading from an old version,
> > you
> > > do
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > understand and configure IBP. I see a similar pattern
> > here
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > features. From the ease of use perspective, ideally, we
> > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new user to have an extra step such as running a
> > bootstrap
> > > > > script
> > > > > > > > > unless
> > > > > > > > > > > it's truly necessary. If someone has a special need
> (all
> > > the
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > mentioned seem special cases?), they can configure a
> mode
> > > > such
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > features are enabled/disabled manually.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): That makes sense, thanks for the idea! Sorry
> if
> > I
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > this need earlier. I have updated the KIP with the
> approach
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > whenever
> > > > > > > > > > the '/features' node is absent, the controller by default
> > > will
> > > > > > > > bootstrap
> > > > > > > > > > the node
> > > > > > > > > > to contain the latest feature levels. Here is the new
> > section
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > describing
> > > > > > > > > > the same:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Controller:ZKnodebootstrapwithdefaultvalues
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Next, as I explained in my response to Colin's
> suggestions,
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > providing a `--finalize-latest-features` flag with the
> > > tooling.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > lets
> > > > > > > > > > the sysadmin finalize all features known to the
> controller
> > to
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > levels. Please look at this section (point #3 and the
> > tooling
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > later):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Toolingsupport
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you feel this addresses your comment/concern?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:06 PM Jun Rao <
> j...@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more replies below.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 100.6 You can look for the sentence "This operation
> > > requires
> > > > > > ALTER
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > CLUSTER." in KIP-455. Also, you can check its usage in
> > > > > > > > > > > KafkaApis.authorize().
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 110. From the external client/tooling perspective, it's
> > > more
> > > > > > > natural
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > the release version for features. If we can use the
> same
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > for internal representation, it seems simpler (easier
> to
> > > > > > > understand,
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > mapping overhead, etc). Is there a benefit with
> separate
> > > > > external
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > internal versioning schemes?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 111. To put this in context, when we had IBP, the
> default
> > > > value
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > current released version. So, if you are a brand new
> > user,
> > > > you
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > to configure IBP and all new features will be
> immediately
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new cluster. If you are upgrading from an old version,
> > you
> > > do
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > understand and configure IBP. I see a similar pattern
> > here
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > features. From the ease of use perspective, ideally, we
> > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > require a
> > > > > > > > > > > new user to have an extra step such as running a
> > bootstrap
> > > > > script
> > > > > > > > > unless
> > > > > > > > > > > it's truly necessary. If someone has a special need
> (all
> > > the
> > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > mentioned seem special cases?), they can configure a
> mode
> > > > such
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > features are enabled/disabled manually.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:54 PM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > > > > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. Please find
> my
> > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > below.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.6 For every new request, the admin needs to
> > control
> > > > who
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue that request if security is enabled. So, we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request a ResourceType and possible AclOperations.
> > See
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-455%3A+Create+an+Administrative+API+for+Replica+Reassignment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as an example.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): I don't see any reference to the words
> > > > > ResourceType
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > AclOperations
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the KIP. Please let me know how I can use the KIP
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > linked
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > know how to
> > > > > > > > > > > > setup the appropriate ResourceType and/or
> > > ClusterOperation?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 105. If we change delete to disable, it's better to
> > do
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > consistently
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request protocol and admin api as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): The API shouldn't be called 'disable' when
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > > > deleting
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've just changed the KIP to use 'delete'. I don't
> > have a
> > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > > > > > preference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 110. The minVersion/maxVersion for features use
> > int64.
> > > > > > > Currently,
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release version schema is major.minor.bugfix (e.g.
> > > > 2.5.0).
> > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for new features to be included in minor releases
> > too.
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature versioning match the release versioning?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): The release version can be mapped to a set
> > of
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > versions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and this can be done, for example in the tool (or
> even
> > > > > external
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > tool).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please clarify what I'm missing?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 111. "During regular operations, the data in the ZK
> > > node
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > mutated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only via a specific admin API served only by the
> > > > > > controller." I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wondering why can't the controller auto finalize a
> > > > feature
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all brokers are upgraded? For new users who
> download
> > > the
> > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > build a new cluster, it's inconvenient for them to
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > manually
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each feature.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): I agree that there is a trade-off here,
> but
> > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > to decide whether the automation can be thought
> through
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a follow up KIP, or right now in this KIP. We may
> > > invest
> > > > > > > > > > > > in automation, but we have to decide whether we
> should
> > do
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > now or later.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For the inconvenience that you mentioned, do you
> think
> > > the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned can be overcome by asking for the cluster
> > > > operator
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > bootstrap script when he/she knows that a specific
> AK
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > almost completely deployed in a cluster for the first
> > > time?
> > > > > > Idea
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > bootstrap script will know how to map a specific AK
> > > release
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature versions, and run the `kafka-features.sh`
> tool
> > > > > > > > appropriately
> > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > the cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, coming back to your automation
> proposal/question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I do see the value of automated feature version
> > > > finalization,
> > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > that this will open up several questions and some
> > risks,
> > > as
> > > > > > > > explained
> > > > > > > > > > > > below.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The answers to these depend on the definition of the
> > > > > automation
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > choose
> > > > > > > > > > > > to build, and how well does it fit into a kafka
> > > deployment.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, it can be unsafe for the controller to
> > > finalize
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > upgrades automatically, without learning about the
> > intent
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cluster
> > > > > > > > > > > > operator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We would sometimes want to lock feature versions
> > only
> > > > when
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > externally verified
> > > > > > > > > > > > the stability of the broker binary.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Sometimes only the cluster operator knows that a
> > > cluster
> > > > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > complete,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and new brokers are highly unlikely to join the
> > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Only the cluster operator knows that the intent is
> > to
> > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the new broker release across the entire cluster
> > (i.e.
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > > > > downloaded version).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. For downgrades, it appears the controller still
> > needs
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > external
> > > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > (such as the proposed tool) to finalize a feature
> > version
> > > > > > > > downgrade.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we have automation, that automation can end up
> > failing
> > > > in
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > above. Then, we need a way to declare that the
> cluster
> > is
> > > > > "not
> > > > > > > > ready"
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > controller cannot automatically finalize some basic
> > > > required
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > upgrades across the cluster. We need to make the
> > cluster
> > > > > > operator
> > > > > > > > > aware
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > such a scenario (raise an alert or alike).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 112. DeleteFeaturesResponse: It seems the apiKey
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > 49
> > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > 48.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Done.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:24 AM Jun Rao <
> > > j...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments below.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.6 For every new request, the admin needs to
> > control
> > > > who
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue that request if security is enabled. So, we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request a ResourceType and possible AclOperations.
> > See
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-455%3A+Create+an+Administrative+API+for+Replica+Reassignment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an example.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 105. If we change delete to disable, it's better to
> > do
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > consistently
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request protocol and admin api as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 110. The minVersion/maxVersion for features use
> > int64.
> > > > > > > Currently,
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release version schema is major.minor.bugfix (e.g.
> > > > 2.5.0).
> > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for new features to be included in minor releases
> > too.
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature versioning match the release versioning?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 111. "During regular operations, the data in the ZK
> > > node
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > mutated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only via a specific admin API served only by the
> > > > > > controller." I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wondering why can't the controller auto finalize a
> > > > feature
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all brokers are upgraded? For new users who
> download
> > > the
> > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > build a new cluster, it's inconvenient for them to
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > manually
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > each feature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 112. DeleteFeaturesResponse: It seems the apiKey
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > 49
> > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 48.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:27 AM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > > > > > > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Jun,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the great feedback! Please note
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has changed a little bit on the KIP, and we now
> > > > propagate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features metadata only via ZK watches (instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > UpdateMetadataRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the controller).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find below my response to your
> > > > questions/feedback,
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > prefix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "(Kowshik):".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.
> UpdateFeaturesRequest/UpdateFeaturesResponse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.1 Since this request waits for responses
> from
> > > > > > brokers,
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout in the request (like
> createTopicRequest)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done. I have added a
> > timeout
> > > > > field.
> > > > > > > > Note:
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wait for responses from brokers, since the design
> > has
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features information is propagated via ZK.
> > > > Nevertheless,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a timeout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.2 The response schema is a bit weird.
> > > Typically,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shows an error code and an error message,
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > echoing
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Yeah, I have modified it
> to
> > > > just
> > > > > > > return
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code and a message.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Previously it was not echoing the "request",
> rather
> > > it
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > returning
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > latest set of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster-wide finalized features (after applying
> the
> > > > > > updates).
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > right,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the additional info is not required, so I have
> > > removed
> > > > it
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.3 Should we add a separate request to
> > > > list/describe
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): This is already present in the KIP via
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'DescribeFeatures'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Admin API,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which, underneath covers uses the
> > ApiVersionsRequest
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > list/describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing features. Please read the 'Tooling
> > support'
> > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.4 We are mixing ADD_OR_UPDATE and DELETE
> in a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > request.
> > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DELETE, the version field doesn't make sense.
> > So, I
> > > > > guess
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignores this? An alternative way is to have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DeleteFeaturesRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! I have modified the KIP
> now
> > > to
> > > > > > have 2
> > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > controller APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > serving these different purposes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. updateFeatures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. deleteFeatures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.5 In UpdateFeaturesResponse, we have "The
> > > > > > monotonically
> > > > > > > > > > > > increasing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of the metadata for finalized
> features."
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > > > > wondering
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ordering is important?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): In the latest KIP write-up, it is
> called
> > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > (instead
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version), and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is just the ZK node version. Basically, this
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster-wide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalized feature version metadata. This metadata
> > is
> > > > > served
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ApiVersionsResponse (for reads). We propagate
> > updates
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '/features'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to all brokers, via ZK watches setup by each
> broker
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > '/features'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now here is why the ordering is important:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK watches don't propagate at the same time. As a
> > > > result,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ApiVersionsResponse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is eventually consistent across brokers. This can
> > > > > introduce
> > > > > > > > cases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > where clients see an older lower epoch of the
> > > features
> > > > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more recent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > higher epoch was returned at a previous point in
> > > time.
> > > > We
> > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to always employ the rule that the latest
> received
> > > > higher
> > > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always trumps an older smaller epoch. Those
> clients
> > > > that
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > external
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka should strongly consider discovering the
> > latest
> > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > startup from the brokers, and if required refresh
> > the
> > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > > > > > periodically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (to get the latest metadata).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.6 Could you specify the required ACL for
> this
> > > new
> > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): What is ACL, and how could I find out
> > > which
> > > > > one
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > specify?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please could you provide me some pointers? I'll
> be
> > > glad
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP once I know the next steps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 101. For the broker registration ZK node,
> should
> > we
> > > > > bump
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the json?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done. I've increased the
> > > > version
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > json
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 102. For the /features ZK node, not sure if we
> > need
> > > > the
> > > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > > > field.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK node has an internal version field that is
> > > > > incremented
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done. I'm using the ZK
> node
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > now,
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incremented epoch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 103. "Enabling the actual semantics of a
> feature
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > cluster-wide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to the discretion of the logic
> implementing
> > > the
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > (ex:
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done via dynamic broker config)." Does that
> mean
> > > the
> > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > registration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node will be updated dynamically when this
> > happens?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Not really. The text was just
> conveying
> > > > that a
> > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "know" of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a new feature version, but it does not mean the
> > > broker
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > activated the effects of the feature version.
> > Knowing
> > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > activation
> > > > > > > > > > > > are 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate things,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the latter can be achieved by dynamic
> config. I
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > reworded
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > text
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make this clear to the reader.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104. UpdateMetadataRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104.1 It would be useful to describe when the
> > > feature
> > > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the request. My understanding is that it's
> > only
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > (1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a change to the finalized feature; (2) broker
> > > > restart;
> > > > > > (3)
> > > > > > > > > > > controller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failover.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104.2 The new fields have the following
> versions.
> > > Why
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when the top version is bumped to 6?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "fields": [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {"name": "Name", "type": "string",
> > > > "versions":
> > > > > > > > "3+",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "about": "The name of the feature."},
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {"name": "Version", "type": "int64",
> > > > > > "versions":
> > > > > > > > > "3+",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "about": "The finalized version for
> the
> > > > > > > feature."}
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): With the new improved design, we have
> > > > > completely
> > > > > > > > > > > eliminated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use UpdateMetadataRequest. This is because we now
> > > rely
> > > > on
> > > > > > ZK
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > deliver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > notifications for changes to the '/features' ZK
> > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 105. kafka-features.sh: Instead of using
> > > > update/delete,
> > > > > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to use enable/disable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): For delete, yes, I have changed it so
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'disable'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However for 'update', it can now also refer to
> > either
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > > > > or a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > forced downgrade.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I have left it the way it is, just
> > calling
> > > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'update'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jun Rao <
> > > > > j...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few
> > > > comments
> > > > > > > below.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.
> UpdateFeaturesRequest/UpdateFeaturesResponse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.1 Since this request waits for responses
> from
> > > > > > brokers,
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout in the request (like
> createTopicRequest)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.2 The response schema is a bit weird.
> > > Typically,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shows an error code and an error message,
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > echoing
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.3 Should we add a separate request to
> > > > list/describe
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.4 We are mixing ADD_OR_UPDATE and DELETE
> in a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > request.
> > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DELETE, the version field doesn't make sense.
> > So, I
> > > > > guess
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignores this? An alternative way is to have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DeleteFeaturesRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.5 In UpdateFeaturesResponse, we have "The
> > > > > > monotonically
> > > > > > > > > > > > increasing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of the metadata for finalized
> features."
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > > > > wondering
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ordering is important?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100.6 Could you specify the required ACL for
> this
> > > new
> > > > > > > > request?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 101. For the broker registration ZK node,
> should
> > we
> > > > > bump
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the json?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 102. For the /features ZK node, not sure if we
> > need
> > > > the
> > > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > > > field.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK node has an internal version field that is
> > > > > incremented
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > update.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 103. "Enabling the actual semantics of a
> feature
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > cluster-wide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to the discretion of the logic
> implementing
> > > the
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > (ex:
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done via dynamic broker config)." Does that
> mean
> > > the
> > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > registration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node will be updated dynamically when this
> > happens?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104. UpdateMetadataRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104.1 It would be useful to describe when the
> > > feature
> > > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the request. My understanding is that it's
> > only
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > (1)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a change to the finalized feature; (2) broker
> > > > restart;
> > > > > > (3)
> > > > > > > > > > > controller
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failover.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 104.2 The new fields have the following
> versions.
> > > Why
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when the top version is bumped to 6?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "fields": [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {"name": "Name", "type": "string",
> > > > "versions":
> > > > > > > > "3+",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "about": "The name of the feature."},
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {"name": "Version", "type": "int64",
> > > > > > "versions":
> > > > > > > > > "3+",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "about": "The finalized version for
> the
> > > > > > > feature."}
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 105. kafka-features.sh: Instead of using
> > > > update/delete,
> > > > > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to use enable/disable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:29 PM Kowshik
> Prakasam
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Boyang,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the great feedback! I have updated
> > the
> > > > KIP
> > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find my response below for your
> > comments,
> > > > look
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > sentences
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "(Kowshik)" below.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. "When is it safe for the brokers to
> begin
> > > > > handling
> > > > > > > EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > traffic"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted as "When is it safe for the
> brokers
> > > to
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > serving
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly-Once(EOS) semantics" since EOS is
> not
> > > > > > explained
> > > > > > > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In the *Explanation *section, the
> metadata
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bit blurred. Could you point a reference to
> > > later
> > > > > > > section
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > store it in Zookeeper and update it every
> > time
> > > > when
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done. I've added a
> > > > reference
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For the feature downgrade, although
> it's a
> > > > > > Non-goal
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features such as group coordinator
> semantics,
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > legal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perform a downgrade at all. So having
> > downgrade
> > > > > door
> > > > > > > open
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > error-prone as human faults happen all the
> > > time.
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > assuming
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features are implemented, it's not very
> hard
> > to
> > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation to indicate whether this feature
> is
> > > > > > > > > "downgradable".
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain a bit more on the extra engineering
> > > > effort
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with downgrade protection in place?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! I'd agree and
> disagree
> > > > here.
> > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accidental
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > downgrades can cause problems, I also think
> > > > sometimes
> > > > > > > > > > downgrades
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be allowed for emergency reasons (not all
> > > > downgrades
> > > > > > > cause
> > > > > > > > > > > issues).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is just subjective to the feature being
> > > > > downgraded.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be more strict about feature version
> > > > downgrades, I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > modified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposing that we mandate a
> `--force-downgrade`
> > > > flag
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UPDATE_FEATURES api
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the tooling, whenever the human is
> > > downgrading
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this should cover the requirement,
> > > until
> > > > we
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advanced downgrade support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. "Each broker’s supported dictionary of
> > > feature
> > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the broker code." So this means in order
> > to
> > > > > > > restrict a
> > > > > > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we need to start the broker first and then
> > > send a
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > gating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > immediately, which introduces a time gap
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > intended-to-close
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could actually serve request during this
> > phase.
> > > > Do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support configurations as well so that
> admin
> > > user
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > freely
> > > > > > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster with all nodes complying the same
> > > feature
> > > > > > > gating,
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the turnaround time to propagate the
> > > > message
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > starts up?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): This is a great point/question.
> One
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > expectations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this KIP, which is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already followed in the broker, is the
> > following.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Imagine at time T1 the broker starts up
> and
> > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > presence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > along with advertising it’s supported
> > > features.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Imagine at a future time T2 the broker
> > > receives
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UpdateMetadataRequest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the controller, which contains the
> > latest
> > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seen by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the controller. The broker validates this
> > data
> > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make sure there is no mismatch (it will
> > > shutdown
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incompatibility).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is expected that during the time between
> > the 2
> > > > > > events
> > > > > > > T1
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > T2,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > almost a silent entity in the cluster. It
> does
> > > not
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster, or carry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out any important broker activities. By
> > > > “important”,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mutations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on it’s persistence, not mutating critical
> > > > in-memory
> > > > > > > state,
> > > > > > > > > > won’t
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serving
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > produce/fetch requests. Note it doesn’t even
> > know
> > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it receives UpdateMetadataRequest from
> > > controller.
> > > > > > > Anything
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until this point is not damaging/useful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve clarified the above in the KIP, see this
> > new
> > > > > > > section:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Incompatiblebrokerlifetime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. "adding a new Feature, updating or
> > deleting
> > > an
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Feature",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I misunderstood something, I thought the
> > > features
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code, so admin could not really create a
> new
> > > > > feature?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! You understood this
> > > right.
> > > > > Here
> > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means we are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding a cluster-wide finalized *max* version
> > > for a
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previously never finalized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have clarified this in the KIP now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. I think we need a separate error code
> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FEATURE_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reject a concurrent feature update request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! I have modified the
> KIP
> > > > > adding
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > > > > > > (see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Tooling support -> Admin API changes').
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. I think we haven't discussed the
> > alternative
> > > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature information through Zookeeper. Is
> > that
> > > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify why using UpdateMetadata is more
> > > > favorable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Nice question! The broker reads
> > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only during startup when it does a
> validation.
> > > When
> > > > > > > serving
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `ApiVersionsRequest`, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker does not read this info from ZK
> > directly.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > imagine
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > risk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that it can increase
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ZK read QPS which can be a bottleneck for
> > the
> > > > > > system.
> > > > > > > > > > Today,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we use the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controller to fan out ZK updates to brokers
> and
> > > we
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > stick
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pattern to avoid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ZK read bottleneck when serving
> > > > > > `ApiVersionsRequest`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. I was under the impression that user
> could
> > > > > > > configure a
> > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported versions, what's the trade-off
> for
> > > > > allowing
> > > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version only?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great question! The finalized
> > version
> > > > of a
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > basically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > refers to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the cluster-wide finalized feature "maximum"
> > > > version.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'group_coordinator' feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has the finalized version set to 10, then, it
> > > means
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster-wide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions upto v10 are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported for this feature. However, note
> that
> > if
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > (ex:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > v0)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gets deprecated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for this feature, then we don’t convey that
> > using
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > scheme
> > > > > > > > > > > (also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supporting deprecation is a non-goal).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): I’ve now modified the KIP at all
> > > points,
> > > > > > > > refering
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature "maximum" versions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. One minor syntax fix: Note that here the
> > > > > "client"
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Kowshik): Great point! Done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:17 PM Boyang Chen <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctanthero...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for the revised KIP. Got a couple of
> > > > > > questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. "When is it safe for the brokers to
> begin
> > > > > handling
> > > > > > > EOS
> > > > > > > > > > > > traffic"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted as "When is it safe for the
> brokers
> > > to
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > serving
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly-Once(EOS) semantics" since EOS is
> not
> > > > > > explained
> > > > > > > > > > earlier
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In the *Explanation *section, the
> metadata
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bit blurred. Could you point a reference to
> > > later
> > > > > > > section
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > store it in Zookeeper and update it every
> > time
> > > > when
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For the feature downgrade, although
> it's a
> > > > > > Non-goal
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features such as group coordinator
> semantics,
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > legal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perform a downgrade at all. So having
> > downgrade
> > > > > door
> > > > > > > open
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > error-prone as human faults happen all the
> > > time.
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > assuming
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features are implemented, it's not very
> hard
> > to
> > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation to indicate whether this feature
> is
> > > > > > > > > "downgradable".
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain a bit more on the extra engineering
> > > > effort
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > shipping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with downgrade protection in place?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. "Each broker’s supported dictionary of
> > > feature
> > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the broker code." So this means in order
> > to
> > > > > > > restrict a
> > > > > > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we need to start the broker first and then
> > > send a
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > gating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > immediately, which introduces a time gap
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > intended-to-close
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could actually serve request during this
> > phase.
> > > > Do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support configurations as well so that
> admin
> > > user
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > freely
> > > > > > > > > > > > roll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster with all nodes complying the same
> > > feature
> > > > > > > gating,
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about the turnaround time to propagate the
> > > > message
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > starts up?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. "adding a new Feature, updating or
> > deleting
> > > an
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Feature",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I misunderstood something, I thought the
> > > features
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code, so admin could not really create a
> new
> > > > > feature?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. I think we need a separate error code
> like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FEATURE_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reject a concurrent feature update request.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. I think we haven't discussed the
> > alternative
> > > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature information through Zookeeper. Is
> > that
> > > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify why using UpdateMetadata is more
> > > > favorable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. I was under the impression that user
> could
> > > > > > > configure a
> > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported versions, what's the trade-off
> for
> > > > > allowing
> > > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version only?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. One minor syntax fix: Note that here the
> > > > > "client"
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Boyang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:53 PM Colin
> McCabe
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > cmcc...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, at 19:24, Kowshik
> > > > Prakasam
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Colin,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback! I've changed
> the
> > > KIP
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find below my explanation. Here
> > is a
> > > > > link
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > 584:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. '__data_version__' is the version of
> > the
> > > > > > > finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > metadata
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. actual ZK node contents), while
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > '__schema_version__'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of the schema of the data
> > persisted
> > > > in
> > > > > > ZK.
> > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > serve
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purposes. '__data_version__' is is
> useful
> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reads,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to differentiate between the 2 versions
> > of
> > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'finalized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features' metadata (i.e. larger
> metadata
> > > > > version
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > recent).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > '__schema_version__' provides an
> > additional
> > > > > > degree
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we decide to change the schema for
> > > > '/features'
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > ZK
> > > > > > > > > > > (in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > future),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then we can manage broker roll outs
> > > suitably
> > > > > > (i.e.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serialization/deserialization of the ZK
> > > data
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > safely).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kowshik,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're talking about a number that
> lets
> > > you
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less recent, we would typically call that
> > an
> > > > > epoch,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ZK data structures, the word
> "version"
> > is
> > > > > > > typically
> > > > > > > > > > > > reserved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > describing changes to the overall schema
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ZooKeeper. We don't even really change
> the
> > > > > > "version"
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schemas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much, since most changes are
> > > > > backwards-compatible.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version field just in case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we really need an epoch
> here,
> > > > > though,
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the broker epoch. Whenever the broker
> > > > > > registers,
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greater than the previous broker epoch.
> > And
> > > > the
> > > > > > > newly
> > > > > > > > > > > > registered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take priority. This will be a lot
> simpler
> > > than
> > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > epoch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system, I think.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Regarding admin client needing min
> and
> > > max
> > > > > > > > > > information -
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've changed the KIP such that the
> Admin
> > > API
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'supported features' from a specific
> > > broker.
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Admin API changes".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Regarding the use of `long` vs
> `Long`
> > -
> > > it
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deliberate.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved the KIP to just use `long` at
> > all
> > > > > > places.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Regarding kafka.admin.FeatureCommand
> > > tool
> > > > -
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > right!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the KIP sketching the functionality
> > > provided
> > > > by
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > tool,
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > examples. Please look at the section
> > > "Tooling
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > examples".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Kowshik.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:31 PM Colin
> > > > McCabe <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Kowshik, this looks good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the "Schema" section, do we really
> > > need
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __schema_version__
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __data_version__? Can we just have a
> > > > single
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't the Admin(Client) function
> > have
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > min
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > max
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information that we're exposing as
> > > well? I
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > min,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > max,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and current. Unrelated: is the use
> of
> > > Long
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deliberate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be good to describe how the
> > > > command
> > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kafka.admin.FeatureCommand will work.
> > > For
> > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > flags
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take and the output that it will
> > generate
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > STDOUT.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020, at 17:08,
> Kowshik
> > > > > > Prakasam
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've opened KIP-584
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584
> >
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is intended to provide a versioning
> > > > scheme
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > features.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this thread to discuss the same.
> I'd
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a link to KIP-584
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584
> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kowshik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
