Hi, Colin, Thanks for the update. We also excluded supported features with maxVersion of 0 from both ApiVersionResponse and BrokerRegistrationRequest, and excluded finalized features with version of 0 from ApiVersionResponse. It would be useful to document those too.
Jun On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 9:25 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > Just to close the loop on this... the KIP now mentions both > ApiVersionResponse and BrokerRegistrationRequest. > > best, > Colin > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, at 14:57, Jun Rao wrote: > > Hi, Colin, > > > > Thanks for the update. Since the PR also introduces a new version of > > BrokerRegistrationRequest, could we include that change in the KIP update > > too? > > > > Jun > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 11:08 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've updated the approach in https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16421 > >> so that we change the minVersion=0 to minVersion=1 in older > >> ApiVersionsResponses. > >> > >> I hope we can get this in soon and unblock the features that are waiting > >> for it! > >> > >> best, > >> Colin > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 10:55, Jun Rao wrote: > >> > Hi, David, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the reply. In the common case, there is no difference > between > >> > omitting just v0 of the feature or omitting the feature completely. > It's > >> > just when an old client is used, there is some difference. To me, > >> > omitting just v0 of the feature seems slightly better for the old > client. > >> > > >> > Jun > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:45 AM David Jacot > <dja...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Jun, Colin, > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for your replies. > >> >> > >> >> If the FeatureCommand relies on version 0 too, my suggestion does not > >> work. > >> >> Omitting the features for old clients as suggested by Colin seems > fine > >> for > >> >> me. In practice, administrators will usually use a version of > >> >> FeatureCommand matching the cluster version so the impact is not too > bad > >> >> knowing that the first features will be introduced from 3.9 on. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> David > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 2:15 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi David, > >> >> > > >> >> > In the ApiVersionsResponse, we really don't have an easy way of > >> mapping > >> >> > finalizedVersion = 1 to "off" in older releases such as 3.7.0. For > >> >> example, > >> >> > if a 3.9.0 broker advertises that it has finalized group.version = > 1, > >> >> that > >> >> > will be treated by 3.7.0 as a brand new feature, not as "KIP-848 is > >> off." > >> >> > However, I suppose we could work around this by not setting a > >> >> > finalizedVersion at all for group.version (or any other feature) if > >> its > >> >> > finalized level was 1. We could also work around the "deletion = > set > >> to > >> >> 0" > >> >> > issue on the server side. The server can translate requests to set > the > >> >> > finalized level to 0, into requests to set it to 1. > >> >> > > >> >> > So maybe this solution is worth considering, although it's > >> unfortunate to > >> >> > lose 0. I suppose we'd have to special case metadata.version being > >> set to > >> >> > 1, since that was NOT equivalent to it being "off" > >> >> > > >> >> > best, > >> >> > Colin > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024, at 10:11, Jun Rao wrote: > >> >> > > Hi, David, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Yes, that's another option. It probably has its own challenges. > For > >> >> > > example, the FeatureCommand tool currently treats disabling a > >> feature > >> >> as > >> >> > > setting the version to 0. It would be useful to get Jose's > opinion > >> on > >> >> > this > >> >> > > since he introduced version 0 in the kraft.version feature. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Jun > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 11:48 PM David Jacot > >> >> <dja...@confluent.io.invalid > >> >> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> Hi Jun, Colin, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Have we considered sticking with the range going from version 1 > to > >> N > >> >> > where > >> >> > >> version 1 would be the equivalent of "disabled"? In the > >> group.version > >> >> > case, > >> >> > >> we could introduce group.version=1 that does basically nothing > and > >> >> > >> group.version=2 that enables the new protocol. I suppose that we > >> could > >> >> > do > >> >> > >> the same for the other features. I agree that it is less elegant > >> but > >> >> it > >> >> > >> would avoid all the backward compatibility issues. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Best, > >> >> > >> David > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 6:02 PM Jun Rao > <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Hi, Colin, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Yes, #3 is the scenario that I was thinking about. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > In either approach, there will be some information missing in > the > >> >> old > >> >> > >> > client. It seems that we should just pick the one that's less > >> wrong. > >> >> > In > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > more common case when a feature is finalized on the server, > >> >> > presenting a > >> >> > >> > supported feature with a range of 1-1 seems less wrong than > >> omitting > >> >> > it > >> >> > >> in > >> >> > >> > the output of "kafka-features describe". > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Thanks, > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Jun > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 9:52 PM Colin McCabe < > cmcc...@apache.org > >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > Hi Jun, > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > This is a fair question. I think there's a few different > >> scenarios > >> >> > to > >> >> > >> > > consider: > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > 1. mixed server software versions in a single cluster > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > 2. new client software + old server software > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > 3. old client software + new server software > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > In scenario #1 and #2, we have old (pre-3.9) server > software in > >> >> the > >> >> > >> mix. > >> >> > >> > > This old software won't support features like group.version > and > >> >> > >> > > kraft.version. As we know, there are no features supported > in > >> 3.8 > >> >> > and > >> >> > >> > older > >> >> > >> > > except metadata.version itself. So the fact that we leave > out > >> some > >> >> > >> stuff > >> >> > >> > > from the ApiVersionResponse isn't terribly significant. We > >> weren't > >> >> > >> going > >> >> > >> > to > >> >> > >> > > be able to enable those post-3.8 features anyway, since > >> enabling a > >> >> > >> > feature > >> >> > >> > > requires ALL server nodes to support it. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > Scenario #3 is more interesting. With new server software, > >> >> features > >> >> > >> like > >> >> > >> > > group.version and kraft.version may be enabled. But due to > the > >> >> > >> > KAFKA-17011 > >> >> > >> > > bug, we cannot accurately communicate the supported feature > >> range > >> >> > back > >> >> > >> to > >> >> > >> > > the old client. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > What is the impact of this? It depends on what the client > is. > >> >> Today, > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > > only client that cares about feature versions is admin > client, > >> >> which > >> >> > >> can > >> >> > >> > > surface them through the Admin.describeFeatures API. So if > we > >> omit > >> >> > the > >> >> > >> > > supported feature range, admi client won't report it. If we > >> fudge > >> >> > it by > >> >> > >> > > reporting it as 1-1 instead of 0-1, admin client will report > >> the > >> >> > fudged > >> >> > >> > > version. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > In theory, there could be other clients looking at the > >> supported > >> >> > >> feature > >> >> > >> > > ranges later, but I guess those will be post-3.8, if they > ever > >> >> > exist, > >> >> > >> and > >> >> > >> > > so not subject to this problem. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > AdminClient returns a separate map for "supported features" > and > >> >> > >> > "finalized > >> >> > >> > > features." So leaving out the supported versions for > >> group.version > >> >> > and > >> >> > >> > > kraft.version will not prevent the client from returning the > >> >> > finalized > >> >> > >> > > versions of those features to the old client. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > So basically we have a choice between missing information in > >> >> > >> > > Admin.describeFeatures and wrong information. I would lean > >> towards > >> >> > the > >> >> > >> > > missing information path, but I guess we should try out an > old > >> >> > build of > >> >> > >> > > kafka-features.sh against a server with one of the new > features > >> >> > >> enabled, > >> >> > >> > to > >> >> > >> > > make sure it looks the way we want. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > best, > >> >> > >> > > Colin > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, at 14:01, Jun Rao wrote: > >> >> > >> > > > Hi, Colin, > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > ApiVersionResponse includes both supported and finalized > >> >> > features. If > >> >> > >> > we > >> >> > >> > > > only suppress features in the supported field, but not in > the > >> >> > >> finalized > >> >> > >> > > > field, it can potentially lead to inconsistency in the > older > >> >> > client. > >> >> > >> > For > >> >> > >> > > > example, if a future feature supporting V0 is finalized in > >> the > >> >> > >> broker, > >> >> > >> > an > >> >> > >> > > > old client issuing V3 of ApiVersionRequest will see the > >> feature > >> >> in > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > > > finalized field, but not in the supported field. > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > An alternative approach is to still include all features > in > >> the > >> >> > >> > supported > >> >> > >> > > > field, but replace minVersion of 0 with 1. This may still > >> lead > >> >> to > >> >> > >> > > > inconsistency if a future feature is finalized at version > 0. > >> >> > However, > >> >> > >> > > since > >> >> > >> > > > downgrading is less frequent than upgrading, this approach > >> seems > >> >> > >> > slightly > >> >> > >> > > > more consistent. > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > No matter what approach we take, it would be useful to > >> document > >> >> > this > >> >> > >> > > > inconsistency to the old client. > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Thanks, > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Jun > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:18 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> Thanks for the reply, Justine and Colin. Sounds good to > me. > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> Jun > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:54 PM Colin McCabe < > >> >> > cmcc...@apache.org> > >> >> > >> > > wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> Hi Justine, > >> >> > >> > > >>> > >> >> > >> > > >>> Yes, that was what I was thinking. > >> >> > >> > > >>> > >> >> > >> > > >>> best, > >> >> > >> > > >>> Colin > >> >> > >> > > >>> > >> >> > >> > > >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, at 11:11, Justine Olshan wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> > My understanding is that the tools that don't rely on > >> >> > ApiVersions > >> >> > >> > > should > >> >> > >> > > >>> > still return 0s when it is the correct value. I > believe > >> >> these > >> >> > >> > > commands > >> >> > >> > > >>> do > >> >> > >> > > >>> > not require this API and thus can show 0 as versions. > >> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> > Likewise, when the old ApiVersionsRequest is used to > >> >> describe > >> >> > >> > > features, > >> >> > >> > > >>> we > >> >> > >> > > >>> > can't return 0 versions and we won't be able to see > group > >> >> > version > >> >> > >> > > set. > >> >> > >> > > >>> > However, the new api will return 0 and the group > version > >> >> > >> correctly. > >> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> > Let me know if this is consistent with your thoughts, > >> Colin. > >> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> > Justine > >> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:44 AM Jun Rao > >> >> > >> <j...@confluent.io.invalid > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> Hi, Colin, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> Thanks for the update. The proposed change seems > >> reasonable > >> >> > to > >> >> > >> me. > >> >> > >> > > >>> Just one > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> clarification. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> The KIP can show version 0 of certain features with > >> >> > >> > version-mapping > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> and feature-dependencies. Will that part change? For > >> >> example, > >> >> > >> will > >> >> > >> > > the > >> >> > >> > > >>> tool > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> show version 0 features with --release-version 3.8 or > >> do we > >> >> > >> > exclude > >> >> > >> > > >>> them. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> bin/kafka-storage.sh version-mapping > --release-version > >> >> > 3.6-IV1 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> metadata.version=13 (3.6-IV1) > transaction.version=0 > >> >> > >> > > >>> group.version=0 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> kraft.version=0 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> Jun > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:19 PM José Armando García > >> Sancio > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > Thanks for the update Colin. The changes make > sense to > >> >> me. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > Are you planning to update the KIP to reflect this > new > >> >> RPC > >> >> > >> > > version? > >> >> > >> > > >>> It > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > would be good to document the semantics explained > >> above > >> >> in > >> >> > the > >> >> > >> > > KIP. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > Thanks! > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:22 PM Justine Olshan > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > Ok makes sense. I will update my PR. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Colin McCabe < > >> >> > >> > > cmcc...@apache.org> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > I think it's better to suppress the response in > >> v3. > >> >> The > >> >> > >> > issue > >> >> > >> > > >>> with > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > modifying it is that there may be scenarios > where > >> [1, > >> >> > 1] > >> >> > >> is > >> >> > >> > > the > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> actual > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > supported range, and we'd want to know that. > But > >> >> > leaving > >> >> > >> out > >> >> > >> > > the > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > feature > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > should be OK for older clients (it will be the > >> case > >> >> > with > >> >> > >> > > clients > >> >> > >> > > >>> old > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > enough > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > to send a v0, v1, or v2 ApiVersionsRequest > anyway) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > best, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > Colin > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, at 16:46, Justine Olshan > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > Thanks Colin, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > This makes sense to me. Namely in the case > >> where we > >> >> > >> > perhaps > >> >> > >> > > >>> don't > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > want to > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > support version 0 anymore, we need the range > to > >> be > >> >> > able > >> >> > >> to > >> >> > >> > > not > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > include 0. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > (In other words, we can't assume 0 is > supported) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > It is unfortunate that this change is a bit > >> tricky, > >> >> > but > >> >> > >> I > >> >> > >> > > think > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> it's > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > the > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > best option. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > Can you clarify > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> The server will simply leave out the > features > >> >> whose > >> >> > >> > minimum > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > supported > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > value is 0 for clients that send v3 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > For 3.8, I planned to set the 0s in the > >> response to > >> >> > 1. > >> >> > >> Is > >> >> > >> > it > >> >> > >> > > >>> better > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > to > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > suppress the zero version features in the > >> response > >> >> > so we > >> >> > >> > are > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > consistent > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > between trunk and 3.8? > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > Thanks, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > Justine > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM Colin McCabe > < > >> >> > >> > > >>> cmcc...@apache.org> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> It seems that there was a bug in older > >> versions of > >> >> > >> Kafka > >> >> > >> > > which > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > caused > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> deserialization problems when a supported > >> feature > >> >> > range > >> >> > >> > > >>> included > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> 0. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > For > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> example, the range for group.version of [0, > 1] > >> >> would > >> >> > >> be a > >> >> > >> > > >>> problem > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> in > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > this > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> situation. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> This obviously makes supportedVersions kind > of > >> >> > useless. > >> >> > >> > Any > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> feature > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > that > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> doesn't exist today is effectively at v0 > today > >> (v0 > >> >> > is > >> >> > >> > > >>> equivalent > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> to > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > "off"). > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> But if we can't declare that the server > >> supports > >> >> > [0, 1] > >> >> > >> > or > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> similar, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > we > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> can't declare that it supports the feature > >> being > >> >> > off. > >> >> > >> > > >>> Therefore, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> no > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > rolling > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> upgrades are possible. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> We noticed this bug during the 3.8 release > >> when we > >> >> > >> > noticed > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> problems > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > in > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> upgrade tests. As an addendum to KIP-1022, > >> we're > >> >> > adding > >> >> > >> > the > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > following > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> solution: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> - There will be a new v4 for > ApiVersionsRequest > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> - Clients that sent v4 will promise to > >> correctly > >> >> > handle > >> >> > >> > > ranges > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> that > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > start > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> with 0, such as [0, 1] > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> - The server will simply leave out the > features > >> >> > whose > >> >> > >> > > minimum > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > supported > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> value is 0 for clients that send v3 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> - ApiVersionsRequest v4 will be supported > in AK > >> >> 3.9 > >> >> > and > >> >> > >> > > >>> above. AK > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > 3.8 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > will > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> ship with ApiVersionsRequest v3 just as > today. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> thanks, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> Colin > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 11:01, Justine > Olshan > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > Hey folks, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone! I will go ahead and call > it. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > The KIP passes with the following +1 > votes: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > - Andrew Schofield (non-binding) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > - David Jacot (binding) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > - José Armando García Sancio (binding) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > - Jun Rao (binding) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > Thanks again, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > Justine > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Jun Rao > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> <j...@confluent.io.invalid > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> Hi, Justine, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> Jun > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:13 AM José > Armando > >> >> > García > >> >> > >> > > Sancio > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > Hi Justine, > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > +1 (binding) > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the improvement. > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > -José > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > -- > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > -José > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > > >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
