Initial proposal for hierarchial namespace controller subproject

[rjbez17]

A KEP for the submission of hierarchial namespace controller as a subproject of sig-auth. The filename and status represents a provisional draft until discussed at the sig-auth meeting on April 15th 2020.

cc: @adrianludwin @tashimi @srampal

[enj]

Please update the structure to follow the new process as defined in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kubernetes/enhancements/master/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md

[rjbez17]

Please update the structure to follow the new process as defined in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kubernetes/enhancements/master/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md

@enj I think I covered it. Let me know if I missed something. Issue created here: #1687

[enj]

I think you still need these steps (note that you can only see them in raw view of the file):

• Make a copy of this template directory.
  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it NNNN-short-descriptive-title, where NNNN is the issue number (with no leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
• Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.
  At minimum, you should fill in the "title", "authors", "owning-sig", "status", and date-related fields.

[rjbez17]

I think you still need these steps (note that you can only see them in raw view of the file):

* [ ]  **Make a copy of this template directory.**
  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.

* [ ]  **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.**
  At minimum, you should fill in the "title", "authors", "owning-sig", "status", and date-related fields.

Done!

[mikedanese]

@kubernetes/sig-auth-proposals

[rjbez17]

Looks like github is having some issues, will retest when it recovers.

[rjbez17]

/test pull-enhancements-verify

[rjbez17]

@mikedanese let me know if anything else is needed from me for this PR.

[enj]

We probably need to set some time aside to do an API review (possibly high bandwidth meeting) followed by a code review (possibly async).

[rjbez17]

We probably need to set some time aside to do an API review (possibly high bandwidth meeting) followed by a code review (possibly async).

@enj Is this needed before merging this PR? Since it is part of the graduation criteria, and the KEP is provisional I'd think it could be done out of band of this PR?

[mikedanese]

One more question. Please squash commits.

[rjbez17]

One more question. Please squash commits.

Squashed

[mikedanese]

Thanks. I'm happy with the graduation criteria. @enj please take a look.

[enj]

LGTM. Do we need to schedule something explicit to make sure we get to the intake requirements soon-ish? Since this is outside of k/k, I believe we are not bound by the v1.19 release schedule and thus it may make sense to focus on other efforts that must be completed by enchantment freeze.

[rjbez17]

LGTM. Do we need to schedule something explicit to make sure we get to the intake requirements soon-ish? Since this is outside of k/k, I believe we are not bound by the v1.19 release schedule and thus it may make sense to focus on other efforts that must be completed by enchantment freeze.

@mikedanese mentioned to open GH issues to track this, but which repo should I open it in? The main sig-auth repo?

[adrianludwin]

I think that's the best place to start, yes. Thanks!

…

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:25 PM Ryan Bezdicek ***@***.***> wrote: LGTM. Do we need to schedule something explicit to make sure we get to the intake requirements soon-ish? Since this is outside of k/k, I believe we are not bound by the v1.19 release schedule and thus it may make sense to focus on other efforts that must be completed by enchantment freeze. @mikedanese <https://github.com/mikedanese> mentioned to open GH issues to track this, but which repo should I open it in? The main sig-auth repo? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1686 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE43PZAJ7J55MOMUSEDXVELRQX7ANANCNFSM4MIHQHQQ> .

[johnbelamaric]

Hi all, I am wondering whether we (Release enhancements team) need to track this. This is all out-of-tree and not delivered with the k8s release, correct?

[rjbez17]

Hi all, I am wondering whether we (Release enhancements team) need to track this. This is all out-of-tree and not delivered with the k8s release, correct?

@johnbelamaric yep that’s correct

[johnbelamaric]

Thanks, then we won't track.

[mikedanese]

mentioned to open GH issues to track this, but which repo should I open it in?

Open issues in the multi tenancy repo for the various inclusion requirements and cc me.

[mikedanese]

/lgtm

[mikedanese]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mikedanese, rjbez17

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• keps/sig-auth/OWNERS [mikedanese]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment