Hi, Andrew, Thanks for the reply. A few more comments.
JR4. "The configuration keys are defined in org.apache.kafka.clients.CommonClientConfigs" Could you explicitly list the clients (producer, consumer, AdminClient, etc.) that define the two new configs? JR5. Should AK frameworks such as kstream and connect set client.framework.name and client.framework.version in their clients automatically? JR6. "Broker-added resources labels for client metrics" Are the new labels added in DefaultClientTelemetryContext.RequestContext? Since ClientTelemetryExporter.exportMetrics() only takes ClientTelemetryContext, does the implementor need to cast it to DefaultClientTelemetryContext to retrieve the new labels? Jun On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:48 PM Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jun, > JR1: I dug into the KIP-714 client metrics stuff a bit more and I have > revised the KIP. I have added client-framework-name and > client-framework-version to the set of keys in the matching for client > metrics, and also added these broker-added metrics tags. This is how these > pieces of information would have been incorporated into KIP_714 had they > been part of Kafka at that point. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On 2026/08/04 20:29:19 Andrew Schofield wrote: > > Hi Jun, > > Thanks for the response. > > > > JR1: My intent here is only request logging. It would be possible to add > client-framework-name and client-framework-version to the match criteria > for client metrics, which could conceivably permit scenarios such as > capturing metrics from specific versions of the Spring framework. This is > beyond the scope I have in mind. > > > > JR3: Thanks for clarifying the tagged field conventions. Version bump > reverted. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On 2026/08/04 18:38:40 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > JR1. ClientSoftwareName and ClientSoftwareVersion are used in metric > names > > > and match predicates for configuring client metrics. Are > ClientFrameworkName > > > and ClientFrameworkVersion used in those places too or are they only > used > > > in request logging? > > > > > > JR3. The general rule for adding a new field in RPC is that (1) if it's > > > truly optional, we add it as a tagged field with no version bump; (2) > > > otherwise, we add it as a non-tagged field with a version bump. One > > > exception is when adding a non-optional field in the request header. > > > Because of the limitation in existing implementation, we need to add > it as > > > a tagged field with a version bump. > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 6:04 AM Andrew Schofield <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > > > > > JR1: I've expanded the motivation section in the KIP. They are truly > > > > optional, I feel. When diagnosing an issue using the client logs, > having > > > > this information can illuminate why the application is behaving in a > > > > particular way. If the application is using a framework, behaviours > such as > > > > retries will typically not be in the application code itself because > > > > they're implemented in the framework. There's a difference between > what the > > > > application developer thinks their code does and what we see in the > logs. > > > > That's the point. > > > > > > > > JR2: Done. They're Type.STRING, default null. I think they should be > > > > importance LOW because that affects the prominence of the configs in > the > > > > documentation, but I wonder whether you agree. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > On 2026/08/03 21:39:06 Jun Rao via dev wrote: > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > JR1. Could you describe the use cases of the two new configs and > are they > > > > > truly optional? > > > > > > > > > > JR2. Could you add the type and the default value for the new > configs? > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 10:23 AM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP Andrew. I think it will be very useful if we > can > > > > > > identify frameworks, especially our own ones (Connect and > Streams). > > > > > > > > > > > > About Aditya's point: I am wondering where to draw the line. Many > > > > > > examples seems to be metadata that belongs into he Kafka record > > > > > > `Headers` at the application level, rather than the lower level > request > > > > > > headers? > > > > > > > > > > > > There if of course no strict logical dividing line between both. > And > > > > > > yes, the broker does not access application level Kafka record > > > > > > `Headers`. But if it would be useful to let the broker tap into > > > > > > application level record `Headers` we should tackle it > independently? > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I don't think it would be the right design to push > too many > > > > > > thing into the lower level request headers. So I am in favor of > only > > > > > > added the two new propose `ClientFrameworkName` and > > > > > > `ClientFrameworkVersion` fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/31/26 7:56 AM, Federico Valeri wrote: > > > > > > > Changes look good. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:17 AM Andrew Schofield < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hi Fede, > > > > > > >> Thanks for your response. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> FV1: They are set using the regular config properties. Yes, > it is > > > > > > possible for an end user to set arbitrary values, but then that > would > > > > also > > > > > > be true of a builder or internal constructor. I've added a bit > more > > > > > > information in the KIP and beefed up the config descriptions to > > > > discourage > > > > > > application use. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> FV2: I've never encountered such nightmares myself. The > framework > > > > which > > > > > > sets the config last would win. Maybe this is a motivation for > having a > > > > > > programmatic way of setting the information. We could support > > > > concatenation > > > > > > of framework information, but that's just pandering to these > people. > > > > Let me > > > > > > know what you think. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I've also updated the KIP with a maximum length for these > pieces of > > > > > > information since all identifiers should have defined bounds. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Andrew > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 2026/07/31 08:50:11 Federico Valeri wrote: > > > > > > >>> Hi Andrew, the motivation looks good. A couple of questions: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> FV1: The KIP says frameworks should set them, but it does not > > > > specify > > > > > > >>> the mechanism. If these are ordinary user-facing configs, > nothing > > > > > > >>> prevents an end user from setting arbitrary values, which > defeats > > > > the > > > > > > >>> purpose. Should the framework set them programmatically > (builder or > > > > > > >>> internal constructor) or is user override intentional? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> FV2: What if we have multiple layers of frameworks? Let's > say a > > > > custom > > > > > > >>> framework on top of SpringBoot. I've seen similar nightmares > in the > > > > > > >>> past. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > >>> Fede > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 8:27 AM Aditya Kousik < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Hi Andrew, > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> We’re definitely agreed on the increased use of frameworks > over > > > > than > > > > > > the client directly. I’ve cited the different patterns Spring, > > > > Micronaut, > > > > > > smallrye and company-internal frameworks have APIs built on top > of the > > > > > > Kafka client, in a couple of KIPs already. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The project has enough traction that I think of it as its > own > > > > network > > > > > > client with distributed log semantics for which frameworks are > written, > > > > > > much like gRPC over netty. People want to just write the business > > > > logic and > > > > > > leave the plumbing and threading to the frameworks. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> All of this to say, I’m fine to ship the client framework > as the > > > > new > > > > > > identifying parameter for frameworks to set. It will be mighty > useful. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> My addendum, rather than a pushback is that: guilty as > charged, > > > > I’m > > > > > > driven by the otel/DD telemetry/observability of using Apache > Kafka in > > > > > > applications. The client.framework.version config for instance > can be > > > > used > > > > > > to detect regressions and isolate root causes. But I feel it is > only > > > > one of > > > > > > many such facets. You mentioned that you would use client.id and > > > > > > clientInstanceId to identify a client but that these do not help > with > > > > > > aggregate/fleet-wide issues. As an example, if I tag an app’s AZ > it can > > > > > > help me write alerts on spike in latency in us-west-2. Or, > detect stuck > > > > > > partitions across multiple client.id/application.names none of > whom > > > > share > > > > > > the same client.framework.name. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Other tags that come to mind: application.name, az, team, > env, > > > > rack. > > > > > > All fields users usually hijack client.id for. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> An otel JavaAgent can capture the client metadata > registered and > > > > > > attach it as tags with each resource span. Users who use > frameworks but > > > > > > rely on datadog/otel will get visibility into the client > metadata for > > > > free. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The KIP as I read it, serves as a foundation for future > use. So I > > > > > > don’t want to shoehorn a new behaviour if it explodes the scope > too > > > > much. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > > > >>>> Aditya > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Jul 27, 2026, at 13:52, Andrew Schofield < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Aditya, > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for your response. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> AK1: I chose framework as the blessed abstraction because > my > > > > focus > > > > > > was problem determination for client applications. We often find > that > > > > users > > > > > > with client problems have not coded directly to the Kafka client > > > > interface > > > > > > because they are using a framework. As a result, their knowledge > of the > > > > > > application code is one level removed from the Kafka client. > > > > Frameworks can > > > > > > override configuration defaults, introduce different retry > behaviour > > > > and so > > > > > > on. Lots of companies have their own internal frameworks, so > this KIP > > > > can > > > > > > be used by them too. I'm trying to make it easier to work out > when a > > > > user > > > > > > is making use of a framework and knowing what it is. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Sometimes, particularly for non-Java clients, people have > > > > overridden > > > > > > the ClientSoftwareName/Version themselves, which makes those > concepts > > > > much > > > > > > less useful than they should be. By providing > > > > ClientFrameworkName/Version, > > > > > > there is no longer any need to do so. That's another motivation > here, > > > > even > > > > > > though KIPs don't concern themselves with non-Java clients as > such. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> We could go for a more flexible key-value approach, but a > simple > > > > > > name and version is sufficient for what I had in mind. Feel free > to > > > > push > > > > > > back with additional justification and examples. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> AK2: Done. o.a.k.clients.CommonClientConfigs. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> AK3: To identify a particular client, I would use client > ID and > > > > > > client-instance ID. I think these are generally more useful > concepts > > > > than > > > > > > the framework name and version which are extra information for > the > > > > person > > > > > > trying to figure out why a client is not behaving as expected. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> AK4: I'm sure you have more experience of OTel/DataDog > > > > collectors. > > > > > > You may well be correct that they would be helpful for the > collectors. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>>>> Andrew > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2026/07/26 07:48:20 Aditya Kousik wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Andrew, > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I’m reminded of the client.id discussion we had back in > > > > KIP-1313 > > > > > > re: client instance id. After that discussion, I have a WIP KIP > that > > > > sets a > > > > > > foundation for shipping client metadata tags to be sent for > telemetry. > > > > I > > > > > > was hoping we could discuss if part of that approach could fit > this > > > > KIP. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> AK1. I had a note on the motivation of selecting a > “framework” > > > > as a > > > > > > blessed abstraction. The KIP mentions it’s for the client > metadata and > > > > > > easier problem diagnosis. This is akin to an “application id” > that > > > > > > non-framework clients usually tag with. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> KIP-606 took an approach like > metrics.context.<key>=<val>. If we > > > > > > allow client.metadata.<key>=<val>, then a framework/application > name > > > > and > > > > > > version can sit in such a metadata context and be sent with > ApiVersion > > > > RPC. > > > > > > Of course, this is an open box approach rather than just the > framework > > > > > > name/version (just two fields) we’re adding to the protocol. But > I’m > > > > > > curious about the tier of importance of framework alone. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> AK2. Can you clarify if this config goes into > > > > > > CommonClientConfigs.java, referenced across > producer/consumer/share > > > > etc? I > > > > > > know some share props have the “share.” prefix going. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> AK3. In another thread you mentioned that the broker may > add it > > > > to > > > > > > the request context. In client logs, clientId is a very useful > string > > > > to > > > > > > identify WARN logs when things go sideways like broker > disconnected, > > > > > > rebalance in progress etc. Can you cherry pick and highlight some > > > > useful > > > > > > log places that these strings can go? I suppose adding > > > > clientId/framework > > > > > > to the MDC context might be too voluminous. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> AK4. I foresee collectors like Datadog/OTel might find > these > > > > tags > > > > > > useful in each span exported. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Looking forward to your thoughts on this. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Regards, > > > > > > >>>>>> Aditya > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2026, at 11:53, Andrew Schofield < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd like to open discussion on KIP-1368: Client > framework name > > > > and > > > > > > version. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Applications often use application frameworks such as > Spring to > > > > > > connect to Kafka. To assist with problem diagnosis, this KIP > > > > introduces a > > > > > > way to provide the framework name and version as part of the > metadata > > > > the > > > > > > client sends to the broker when it connects. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Here's the KIP: > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/J4Q_Gg__;!!Ayb5sqE7!vs-_AkY76KFOqYK02q4f2tKSkFdnly7eklb5qfewIk841seg2S5cIOXxFhnAixEYsDVuFQyJx8-D5g$ > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > >>>>>>> Andrew > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
