Status

Current state:  [One of " Under Discussion", "Accepted", "Rejected"]

Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]
JIRA: here [Change the link from KAFKA-1 to your own ticket]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/hqpg2sbmkxp8c8prhjt0cgt5n2xd4ocw

JIRA:

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

...

Topic deletion policies would enable operations to control which topics cannot be deleted even when request authorizeroperators to control how to proceed when topic deletions are requested.

Implementations of this policy could be used:

• As additional safeguard when deletion of internal topics is requested, even when a requester is authorized (i.e. has an ACL allowing to deleted).
  • A policy would be useful to avoid the deletion in this case, e.g. deleting Kafka internal topics  __consumer_offsets or application internal topics like Connect internal topics.
  • Authorizer implementations tend to prefer coarse grained permissions to reduce the number of ACLs (e.g. Confluent RBAC which includes Delete as  part of ResourceOwner) which includes both permissions to create and  delete, making it harder to rely only on the Authorizer.
• To validate against a registry when a topic is deleted, e.g. for cross domain usage.
• To implement retry-based or flag-based mechanisms to safeguard topic deletion.

There has been related KIPs that included this proposal:

...

package org.apache.kafka.server.policy;

public interface DeleteTopicPolicy extends Configurable, AutoCloseable {

    class RequestMetadata {
        private final String topic;
        private final Uuid id; 

        public RequestMetadata(String topic, Uuid id) {
            this.topic = topic;
            this.id = id;
        }

        public String topic() {
            return topic;
        }

        public Uuid id() {
            return id;
        }
    }

    void validate(RequestMetadata requestMetadata) throws PolicyViolationException;

}

...