-1

This PIP attempts to work around user misconfigurations rather than enforce proper system boundaries. As a result, it introduces hidden complexity and encourages fragile, non-transparent behavior. The main issues are:

1. Replicator relies on implicit topic auto-creation on the remote cluster, assuming the auto-creation policies (like number of partitions and topic type) match. But this does not solve the root problem. Remote cluster policies may change at any time, and relying on them does not eliminate the risk of topic-type mismatches.

2. Bypassing schema auto-update restrictions for replication is a workaround, not a proper solution.
   If a remote cluster disables schema auto-updates, it reflects an explicit user decision to reject schema changes. Replicator should respect this setting. Injecting schemas automatically breaks the data contract and risks corrupting consumers.
   A safer and more transparent approach would be to allow users to manually reset the cursor to a compatible schema point if they wish to resume replication.

3. Automatically modifying remote cluster policies is a dangerous design.
   It violates cluster isolation and can introduce unintended side effects. In large-scale, multi-tenant deployments, such implicit adjustments are risky and potentially disruptive.

4. Instead of using automatic adjustments or bypass logic, replication should require explicit provisioning of topics and schemas on both clusters.
   This keeps behavior predictable, under user control, and consistent with system boundaries.

In short, this PIP prioritizes tolerating misconfigurations over enforcing correct and safe behavior. That may offer short-term convenience, but it makes the system harder to reason about and less reliable over time.

A better direction would be to improve observability of the replicator (e.g., metrics, failure visibility), and help users fix configuration issues explicitly and safely.