Note that this KIP proposal is derived from a proposal by Grant Henke that was part of KIP-4 - Command line and centralized administrative operations.

Status

Current state: Draft

Discussion thread: TBD

JIRA

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

Motivation

KIP-4 - Command line and centralized administrative operations outlines the motivation for exposing admin operations via the protocol:

A couple of specific use cases are worth pointing out:

  1. The Metadata request exposes topic metadata, but it does not expose topic configs. ListConfigs will make that information available to any client of the Kafka protocol and the AdminClient will expose it to normal users.
  2. AlterConfigs would make it possible to update topic configs, but also client and replication quotas via the protocol and the AdminClient.

Public Interfaces

ACLs

A new ACL resource type `Configs` will be introduced with Describe, Alter and All operations. Initially, this resource type will work at a global level like the Cluster resource type. That is, the only valid resource name will be "kafka-cluster". This leaves the door open for evolving this to be more fine-grained in the future.

Protocol APIs

Wire Format types

Entity types will be encoded to INT8 in the following way:

List Configs

ListConfigs Request (Version: 0) => [entities]   
  entities => entity_type entity_name
    entity_type => INT8
    entity_name => STRING

Request semantics:

  1. Can be sent to any broker
  2. If there are multiple instructions for the same entity in one request the extra request will be ignored
  3. Entity types are "Topic", "Client", and "Broker".
  4. If entity_type is "Broker" and entity_name matches the broker that has received the request, read-only configs for this broker are also returned.
  5. The principal must be authorized to "Describe" the "Configs" resource type or "Describe" the "Cluster" resource type. Unauthorized requests will receive a ConfigsAuthorization error code.
ListConfigs Response (Version: 0) => error_code [entities]
  error_code => INT16
  entities => entity_type entity_name [configs]
    entity_type => INT8
    entity_name => STRING
    configs =>
      config_name => STRING
      config_value => STRING
      read_only => BOOLEAN
      is_default => BOOLEAN
      is_sensitive => BOOLEAN

Alter Configs

AlterConfigs Request (Version: 0) => [entities] validate_only
  validate_only => BOOLEAN
  entities => entity_type entity_name [configs]
    entity_type => INT8
    entity_name => STRING
    configs =>
      config_name => STRING
      config_value => STRING

Request Semantics

  1. Can be sent to any broker
  2. If there are multiple instructions for the same entity in one request, an InvalidRequestException will be logged on the broker and a single error code for that topic will be returned to the client
  3. Entity types are "Topic", "Client", and "Broker".
  4. The principal must be authorized to "Alter" the "Configs" resource type or "Alter" the "Cluster" resource type. Unauthorized requests will receive a ConfigsAuthorization for all entities.
  5. If an Alter operation is attempted on a read-only config, an UnsupportedOperation error will be returned for the relevant entity.
  6. The request is not transactional. 
    1. If an error occurs for an entity, others could still be updated.
    2. Errors are reported independently per entity.
  7. For tools that allow users to alter configs, a validation/dry-run mode where validation errors are reported but no creation is attempted is available via the validate_only parameter.
AlterConfigs Response (Version: 0) => [responses]   
  responses => entity_type entity_name error_code error_message
    entity_type => INT8
    entity_name => STRING
    error_code => INT16
    error_message => STRING


Policy

In a similar fashion to KIP-108: Create Topic Policy, we allow users to define a policy class to validate alter configs requests. The config name will be alter.configs.policy.class.name and the interface follows:

package org.apache.kafka.server.policy;
 
enum ConfigEntityType {
    CLIENT, BROKER, TOPIC, UNKNOWN;
}

public interface AlterConfigsPolicy extends Configurable, AutoCloseable {

    /**
     * Class containing the create request parameters.
     */
    class RequestMetadata {
        /**
         * Create an instance of this class with the provided parameters.
         *
         * This constructor is public to make testing of <code>AlterConfigPolicy</code> implementations easier.
         */
        public RequestMetadata(ConfigEntityType entityType, String entityName, Map<String, String> configs) { ... }

        /**
         * Return configs in the request.
         */
        public Map<String, String> configs() { ... }
    }

    /**
     * Validate the request parameters and throw a <code>PolicyViolationException</code> with a suitable error
     * message if the alter configs request parameters for the provided entity do not satisfy this policy.
     *
     * Clients will receive the POLICY_VIOLATION error code along with the exception's message. Note that validation
     * failure only affects the relevant entity, other entity in the request will still be processed.
     *
     * @param requestMetadata the alter configs request parameters for the provided entity.
     * @throws PolicyViolationException if the request parameters do not satisfy this policy.
     */
    void validate(RequestMetadata requestMetadata) throws PolicyViolationException;
}

Users will have to ensure that the policy implementation code is in the broker's classpath. Implementations should throw the existing PolicyViolationException with an appropriate error message if the request does not fulfill the policy requirements. We chose a generic name for the only parameter of the validate method in case we decide to add parameters that are not strictly related to the topic (e.g. session information) in the future. The constructor of RequestMetadata is public to make testing convenient for users. Under normal circumstances, it should only be instantiated by Kafka. We chose to create separate API classes instead of reusing request classes to make it easier to evolve the latter.

AdminClient APIs

 

 

Proposed Changes

TBD

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

Authorization...

Rejected Alternatives

Future work