Re: [VOTE] KIP-1074: Allow the replication of user internal topics

[Patrik Marton]

Hi All,

Thank you so much for the votes so far! We're just one vote away from
reaching our goal for the KIP. I’d really appreciate it if you could take a
moment to vote or share your thoughts!

Thanks,
Patrik

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 4:20 PM Chris Egerton 
wrote:

> Hi Patrik,
>
> Sorry for the delay, I've been on PTO. LGTM! +1 (binding)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:10 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrik,
> >
> > Thanks for working on this. +1 from me (binding).
> >
> > Best,
> > Viktor
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 1:34 PM Patrik Marton
>  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As the proposal is finalized, and there was no new feedback in the past
> > > week, I would like to open voting for KIP-1074
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1074%3A+Allow+the+replication+of+user+internal+topics
> > > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > Please vote / let me know your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Patrik
> > >
> >
>

[VOTE] KIP-1074: Allow the replication of user internal topics

[Patrik Marton]

Hi all,

As the proposal is finalized, and there was no new feedback in the past
week, I would like to open voting for KIP-1074

.

Please vote / let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Patrik

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

Hi everyone!

Thanks again for all your feedback! The discussion thread has been silent
for a week now, I'll wait a bit for any new feedback and will start the
voting in a couple of days.

Best,
Patrik

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:28 AM Patrik Marton  wrote:

> Hi Omnia,
>
> Thanks, I updated the KIP with the DefaultTopicFilter changes, to reflect
> the new mm2.*.internal pattern.
>
> Best,
> Patrik
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 2:24 PM Omnia Ibrahim 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Patrik for updating the KIP.
>> One last feedback, should we update `TOPICS_EXCLUDE_DEFAULT` also to
>> reflect the same pattern instead of `.*[\\-\\.]internal`?
>>
>> Best,
>> Omnia
>>
>> > On 16 Aug 2024, at 13:31, Patrik Marton 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I updated the KIP with the new proposal, and changed the name to better
>> > describe the latest proposal and the goal.
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1074%3A+Allow+the+replication+of+user+internal+topics
>> >
>> > Let me know your thoughts!
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Patrik
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:50 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Omina,
>> >>
>> >> We have not considered this path yet that you proposed and I like it as
>> >> well and I would also be in favor of a solution that doesn't try to
>> >> introduce a new config. Since this KIP would only make it into 4.0
>> anyway
>> >> and your proposal seems like a smaller compatibility break that can
>> >> be documented in the upgrade notes and also circumvented by a custom
>> >> policy, I think we can do this.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be also happy to receive some feedback from those who have been in
>> this
>> >> conversation to form a consensus around this.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Viktor
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:19 PM Omnia Ibrahim > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Patrick,
>> >>>> One thing that comes up for me is whether we should update the
>> >>> TopicFilter
>> >>>> too to have this more specific pattern, like "mm2-.*.internal".
>> Ideally
>> >>> I'd
>> >>>> say yes, but what if a user already has existing .internal user
>> topics
>> >>> and
>> >>>> relies on the ReplicationPolicy and TopicFilter not to replicate
>> those,
>> >>> and
>> >>>> by changing both to a more specific pattern, we could technically
>> >> enable
>> >>>> their replication. I know this is an edge case, so am I being too
>> >> careful
>> >>>> here?
>> >>>
>> >>> I would say for the ReplicationPolicy blocking all `.internal` and
>> >>> `-internal` as MM2 / Kafka internals is a bug. So anyone who has been
>> >>> relaying on this bug to block topics is relaying on a faulty code
>> >>> especially that none of the Kafka, connect or streams internals do
>> create
>> >>> any topic with these suffixes except MM2 and all of them can be
>> >> identified
>> >>> more accurately without this generic suffix.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The other potential cases we might break are
>> >>> 1. where `replication.policy.internal.topic.separator.enabled` is
>> >> enabled,
>> >>> but we might only need to adjust the code to account for this either
>> in
>> >>> ReplicationPolicy itself
>> >>> ` default boolean isMM2InternalTopic(String topic) { return
>> >>> (topic.startsWith("mm2-") && topic.endsWith("internal")) ||
>> >>> isCheckpointsTopic(topic); }`
>> >>> Or in DefaultReplicationPolicy implementation of `isMM2InternalTopic`.
>> >> So
>> >>> we don’t break the backward compatibility for this case
>> >>> 2. Any use case has a customised ReplicationPolicy with an override of
>> >>> isMM2InternalTopic. This one might also break the backward
>> compatibility
>> >>>
>> >>> As 4.0 coming soon we can leverage this and introduce a breaking
>> change
>> >> to
>> >>> MM2 with clarification of the KIP's impact on backward compatibility
>> for
>&

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

Hi Omnia,

Thanks, I updated the KIP with the DefaultTopicFilter changes, to reflect
the new mm2.*.internal pattern.

Best,
Patrik

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 2:24 PM Omnia Ibrahim 
wrote:

> Thanks Patrik for updating the KIP.
> One last feedback, should we update `TOPICS_EXCLUDE_DEFAULT` also to
> reflect the same pattern instead of `.*[\\-\\.]internal`?
>
> Best,
> Omnia
>
> > On 16 Aug 2024, at 13:31, Patrik Marton 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I updated the KIP with the new proposal, and changed the name to better
> > describe the latest proposal and the goal.
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1074%3A+Allow+the+replication+of+user+internal+topics
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Patrik
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:50 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Omina,
> >>
> >> We have not considered this path yet that you proposed and I like it as
> >> well and I would also be in favor of a solution that doesn't try to
> >> introduce a new config. Since this KIP would only make it into 4.0
> anyway
> >> and your proposal seems like a smaller compatibility break that can
> >> be documented in the upgrade notes and also circumvented by a custom
> >> policy, I think we can do this.
> >>
> >> I'd be also happy to receive some feedback from those who have been in
> this
> >> conversation to form a consensus around this.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Viktor
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:19 PM Omnia Ibrahim 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Patrick,
> >>>> One thing that comes up for me is whether we should update the
> >>> TopicFilter
> >>>> too to have this more specific pattern, like "mm2-.*.internal".
> Ideally
> >>> I'd
> >>>> say yes, but what if a user already has existing .internal user topics
> >>> and
> >>>> relies on the ReplicationPolicy and TopicFilter not to replicate
> those,
> >>> and
> >>>> by changing both to a more specific pattern, we could technically
> >> enable
> >>>> their replication. I know this is an edge case, so am I being too
> >> careful
> >>>> here?
> >>>
> >>> I would say for the ReplicationPolicy blocking all `.internal` and
> >>> `-internal` as MM2 / Kafka internals is a bug. So anyone who has been
> >>> relaying on this bug to block topics is relaying on a faulty code
> >>> especially that none of the Kafka, connect or streams internals do
> create
> >>> any topic with these suffixes except MM2 and all of them can be
> >> identified
> >>> more accurately without this generic suffix.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The other potential cases we might break are
> >>> 1. where `replication.policy.internal.topic.separator.enabled` is
> >> enabled,
> >>> but we might only need to adjust the code to account for this either in
> >>> ReplicationPolicy itself
> >>> ` default boolean isMM2InternalTopic(String topic) { return
> >>> (topic.startsWith("mm2-") && topic.endsWith("internal")) ||
> >>> isCheckpointsTopic(topic); }`
> >>> Or in DefaultReplicationPolicy implementation of `isMM2InternalTopic`.
> >> So
> >>> we don’t break the backward compatibility for this case
> >>> 2. Any use case has a customised ReplicationPolicy with an override of
> >>> isMM2InternalTopic. This one might also break the backward
> compatibility
> >>>
> >>> As 4.0 coming soon we can leverage this and introduce a breaking change
> >> to
> >>> MM2 with clarification of the KIP's impact on backward compatibility
> for
> >>> the following cases,
> >>> - For anyone has been relaying on this bug to block normal topics with
> >>> `internal` suffix they will need to update topic filter config to block
> >>> this suffix manually if they wish for.
> >>> - For anyone overriding  isMM2InternalTopic in their custom
> >>> ReplicationPolicy, they might need to update their code account for the
> >> new
> >>> change to block only mm2 internal topics.
> >>>
> >>> If this path is acceptable with breaking the compatibility with the
> next
> >>> major Kafka release we should consider fixing the issue and not
> &

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

Hi All,

I updated the KIP with the new proposal, and changed the name to better
describe the latest proposal and the goal.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1074%3A+Allow+the+replication+of+user+internal+topics

Let me know your thoughts!

Thanks!
Patrik

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:50 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
 wrote:

> Hi Omina,
>
> We have not considered this path yet that you proposed and I like it as
> well and I would also be in favor of a solution that doesn't try to
> introduce a new config. Since this KIP would only make it into 4.0 anyway
> and your proposal seems like a smaller compatibility break that can
> be documented in the upgrade notes and also circumvented by a custom
> policy, I think we can do this.
>
> I'd be also happy to receive some feedback from those who have been in this
> conversation to form a consensus around this.
>
> Best,
> Viktor
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:19 PM Omnia Ibrahim 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> > > One thing that comes up for me is whether we should update the
> > TopicFilter
> > > too to have this more specific pattern, like "mm2-.*.internal". Ideally
> > I'd
> > > say yes, but what if a user already has existing .internal user topics
> > and
> > > relies on the ReplicationPolicy and TopicFilter not to replicate those,
> > and
> > > by changing both to a more specific pattern, we could technically
> enable
> > > their replication. I know this is an edge case, so am I being too
> careful
> > > here?
> >
> > I would say for the ReplicationPolicy blocking all `.internal` and
> > `-internal` as MM2 / Kafka internals is a bug. So anyone who has been
> > relaying on this bug to block topics is relaying on a faulty code
> > especially that none of the Kafka, connect or streams internals do create
> > any topic with these suffixes except MM2 and all of them can be
> identified
> > more accurately without this generic suffix.
> >
> >
> > The other potential cases we might break are
> > 1. where `replication.policy.internal.topic.separator.enabled` is
> enabled,
> > but we might only need to adjust the code to account for this either in
> > ReplicationPolicy itself
> > ` default boolean isMM2InternalTopic(String topic) { return
> > (topic.startsWith("mm2-") && topic.endsWith("internal")) ||
> > isCheckpointsTopic(topic); }`
> > Or in DefaultReplicationPolicy implementation of `isMM2InternalTopic`.
> So
> > we don’t break the backward compatibility for this case
> > 2. Any use case has a customised ReplicationPolicy with an override of
> > isMM2InternalTopic. This one might also break the backward compatibility
> >
> > As 4.0 coming soon we can leverage this and introduce a breaking change
> to
> > MM2 with clarification of the KIP's impact on backward compatibility for
> > the following cases,
> > - For anyone has been relaying on this bug to block normal topics with
> > `internal` suffix they will need to update topic filter config to block
> > this suffix manually if they wish for.
> > - For anyone overriding  isMM2InternalTopic in their custom
> > ReplicationPolicy, they might need to update their code account for the
> new
> > change to block only mm2 internal topics.
> >
> > If this path is acceptable with breaking the compatibility with the next
> > major Kafka release we should consider fixing the issue and not
> introducing
> > another config to go around it especially that this seems more like
> mistake
> > from the beginning as MM2 original KIP intention was trying to target MM2
> > and Kafka internal topics only and not all topics with this suffix.
> >
> > What does everyone think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Omnia
> > > On 9 Aug 2024, at 10:40, Patrik Marton 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your feedback!
> > >
> > > Regarding the boolean solution, yes this would technically let the
> > customer
> > > accidentally replicate "__.*" topics, but only if they modify the
> > > TopicFilter to allow their replication, as by default topics matching
> > this
> > > pattern are excluded. But in this case we can still hardcode "__.*"
> > topics
> > > as internal in the replication policy, if we feel like we need that
> extra
> > > layer of safety.
> > >
> > > Thanks Omnia for your ideas!
> > > About #2, I think this is something that we should consider besides the
> > > bo

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

original cluster,
> so replicating them doesn’t add much value for anyone.
> > The other problem with mistakenly replicating these topics is that they
> are set up with a compacted policy, which means they don’t get truncated
> naturally by retention. These metadata topics are cleaned in a special way
> to stay within the metadata retention milliseconds or expiration configs.
> As a result of this special situation, replicating these by mistake might
> put the destination cluster’s capacity at risk.
> > Maybe we should be clear that any topic in Topic::INTERNAL_TOPICS is not
> going to be replicated? WDYT?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Omnia
> >
> >> On 7 Aug 2024, at 15:46, Viktor Somogyi-Vass <
> viktor.somo...@cloudera.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> 1. Yea, thinking of it more, I'm also concerned about the upgrade path
> and
> >> I think that it may not be worth adding a ton of code to work around
> that
> >> one time upgrade. It likely needs extra configs as well or
> documentation to
> >> instruct users, so it may not be worth the price. So let's add this to
> the
> >> rejected alternatives.
> >>
> >> 2. As Chris mentioned, I also feel that users may want to improve it
> with
> >> regexes and after a certain number of topics it may not be easily
> >> manageable. And indeed, it feels a little bit like duplicating the
> >> functionality of the topic filter. Overall I like the boolean config
> best
> >> as that prevents most of the unwanted replication cycles by default with
> >> the TopicFilter.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Viktor
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:59 AM Patrik Marton
> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again for your feedback!
> >>>
> >>> My thoughts on Viktor's ideas:
> >>>
> >>> 1. This would definitely be a clean solution in the end, but I also
> feel
> >>> that the complexity of this solution might outweigh the benefits. If
> you
> >>> guys think, we can give it a thought and figure out what exactly needs
> to
> >>> be changed and how the upgrade path would look like, but my opinion is
> that
> >>> since it is a rare use-case, a simple solution might be better.
> >>>
> >>> 2. I initially wanted to propose something like this, but my concern
> was
> >>> that by adding another way a topic can be whitelisted, we would also
> >>> increase the complexity and it would require more attention from
> users. But
> >>> I also think that this would probably be the safest solution of all,
> and
> >>> less risky than modifying regexes or using that simple boolean.
> >>> Since the TopicFilter is not really the problem as its exclude list
> can be
> >>> modified, and it basically acts as another layer of safety, we could
> >>> potentially add this new config (a list of topics) to the
> >>> DefaultReplicationPolicy, and any topic listed in the new config would
> not
> >>> be considered internal by the replication policy. This way we would not
> >>> duplicate the work of the Topic Filter, simply provide a way to tell
> the
> >>> DefaultReplicationPolicy that topics in this list seem internal, but
> they
> >>> are not.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Patrik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 7:17 PM Chris Egerton 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Viktor,
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice to hear from you! My thoughts:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. I initially liked this idea, but it doesn't seem like the costs to
> all
> >>>> existing users outweigh the benefits that would be reaped by just a
> few.
> >>>> This is possibly because I'm assuming the upgrade path would be pretty
> >>>> gnarly, though; if we can make it really, really smooth, especially
> for
> >>>> existing users who don't need to be able to replicate topics ending in
> >>>> "-internal", then I think it'd be a viable option.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. This is definitely safer than a simple boolean property, but
> doesn't
> >>> it
> >>>> feel like we're duplicating the work of the topic filter at this
> point,
> >>>> ex

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

users to
> configure
> > > the DefaultReplicationPolicy class in a way that for some topic T,
> > > isInternalTopic(T) returns false, but isCheckpointsTopic(T),
> > > isHeartbeatsTopic(T), or even isMM2InternalTopic(T) return true. It
> seems
> > > like this kind of inconsistency might cause confusion to users and
> > possibly
> > > even break things down the road depending on how we leverage these
> > methods
> > > in the future.
> > >
> > > With the initial approach, using a simple boolean to enable the
> > replication
> > > of what appear to be internal topics, there is some risk of cycles and
> > > accidental replication of genuinely internal topics, but less than I
> > > believed at first. In order for an internal topic to be replicated, not
> > > only would that boolean property have to be explicitly modified by
> users,
> > > but they would also have to be using a topic filter that allows those
> > > topics to pass through as well.
> > >
> > > I think a simple boolean is better here, as it's easier for users to
> > > configure, and less prone to logical inconsistencies. My only
> suggestions
> > > are:
> > > - Apply the property to the MirrorSourceConnector class instead of the
> > > DefaultReplicationPolicy class, since we're not actually changing the
> > > definition of what is and isn't an internal topic; instead, we're
> simply
> > > allowing topics to be replicated even if they appear to be internal
> > topics
> > > - Rename it to something less verbose like "replicate.internal.topics"
> > > - Add a warning to the docs for the property explicitly pointing people
> > to
> > > the topic filter class, stating that they should still make sure that
> > > genuinely internal topics (instead of topics that
> > > ReplicationPolicy::isInternalTopic returns true for but which are not
> > > actually internal) are excluded by the filter
> > >
> > > Patrik, Greg, how does that sound?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:34 AM Patrik Marton
> >  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Greg and Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your feedbacks!
> > > >
> > > > I added the currently existing workarounds to the “Rejected
> > Alternatives”
> > > > section, and explained why I still think we need a separate
> solution. I
> > > > also added the previous proposal to the rejected alternatives, as I
> > agree
> > > > with your concerns.
> > > > I tried to come up with a bit different regex based solution, and
> > > modified
> > > > the KIP based on that. I think it is a more straightforward way to
> get
> > > the
> > > > desired behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Patrik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2024/07/30 18:57:18 Chris Egerton wrote:
> > > > > Hi Patrick,
> > > > >
> > > > > I share Greg's concerns with the feature as it's currently
> proposed.
> > I
> > > > > don't think I could vote for something unless it made replication
> of
> > > > > genuinely internal topics and replication cycles impossible, or at
> > > least
> > > > > significantly less likely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, 14:51 Greg Harris 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Patrik,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your motivation for this KIP is reasonable, because it is
> > definitely
> > > > > > possible for the ".internal" suffix to collide with real topics.
> It
> > > > would
> > > > > > have been nice if the original design included some mm2-specific
> > > > namespace
> > > > > > like "mm2.internal" to lessen the likelihood of a collision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, this is a problem that has numerous existing
> workarounds:
> > > > > > * Use a cust

RE: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

Hi Greg and Chris,

Thank you for your feedbacks!

I added the currently existing workarounds to the “Rejected Alternatives” 
section, and explained why I still think we need a separate solution. I also 
added the previous proposal to the rejected alternatives, as I agree with your 
concerns.
I tried to come up with a bit different regex based solution, and modified the 
KIP based on that. I think it is a more straightforward way to get the desired 
behavior.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Patrik



On 2024/07/30 18:57:18 Chris Egerton wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I share Greg's concerns with the feature as it's currently proposed. I
> don't think I could vote for something unless it made replication of
> genuinely internal topics and replication cycles impossible, or at least
> significantly less likely.
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, 14:51 Greg Harris 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrik,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP!
> >
> > Your motivation for this KIP is reasonable, because it is definitely
> > possible for the ".internal" suffix to collide with real topics. It would
> > have been nice if the original design included some mm2-specific namespace
> > like "mm2.internal" to lessen the likelihood of a collision.
> >
> > However, this is a problem that has numerous existing workarounds:
> > * Use a custom ReplicationPolicy and override the methods (for existing
> > workloads/mirror makers)
> > * Use non-conflicting user topic names (for new user topics)
> > * Use the replication.policy.separator to use a non-conflicting separator
> > character (for new mirror maker setups)
> >
> > And the feature as-described has significant risks attached:
> > * May allow replication cycles and runaway replication
> > * Mirrors internal topics that are unusable on the destination cluster
> >
> > While these risks can be accounted for if a user is attentive (e.g. when
> > they're writing their own ReplicationPolicy) it is not a risk-free
> > configuration that composes well with other out-of-the-box configurations.
> > For example, someone may expect to take their existing configuration, turn
> > on this new option, and expect reasonable behavior, which isn't always
> > guaranteed.
> >
> > If you're still interested in this feature, please reference the existing
> > workarounds and include them as rejected alternatives so we can know where
> > the existing solutions fall short.
> > We'd also have to figure out if and how the risks I mentioned could be
> > mitigated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 5:49 AM Patrik Marton  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Team,
> > >
> > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1074: Make the replication of
> > > internal topics configurable
> > > <
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1074%3A+Make+the+replication+of+internal+topics+configurable
> > > >
> > >
> > > The goal of this KIP is to make it easier to replicate topics that seem
> > > internal (for example ending in .internal suffix), but are just normal
> > > business topics created by the user.
> > >
> > > I appreciate any feedback and recommendations!
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Patrik
> > >
> >
> 

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[DISCUSS] KIP-1074: Make the replication of internal topics configurable

[Patrik Marton]

Hi Team,

I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1074: Make the replication of
internal topics configurable


The goal of this KIP is to make it easier to replicate topics that seem
internal (for example ending in .internal suffix), but are just normal
business topics created by the user.

I appreciate any feedback and recommendations!

Thanks!
Patrik

Request contributor access

[Patrik Marton]

Hi,

I would like to request contributor access to the project, to be able to
assign tickets to me.

My apache jira id is pmarton

Thank you!
Patrik