|
| 1 | +<!-- |
| 2 | +**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed. |
| 3 | +
|
| 4 | +To get started with this template: |
| 5 | +
|
| 6 | +- [ ] **Pick a hosting SIG.** |
| 7 | + Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking |
| 8 | + up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG. |
| 9 | +- [ ] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements** |
| 10 | + When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all |
| 11 | + fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You |
| 12 | + can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the |
| 13 | + enhancement and add the link. |
| 14 | +- [ ] **Make a copy of this template directory.** |
| 15 | + Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it |
| 16 | + `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no |
| 17 | + leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above. |
| 18 | +- [ ] **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.** |
| 19 | + At minimum, you should fill in the "Title", "Authors", "Owning-sig", |
| 20 | + "Status", and date-related fields. |
| 21 | +- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.** |
| 22 | + At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections. |
| 23 | + These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the |
| 24 | + appropriate SIG(s). |
| 25 | +- [ ] **Create a PR for this KEP.** |
| 26 | + Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process. |
| 27 | +- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.** |
| 28 | + Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of |
| 29 | + the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just |
| 30 | + start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in |
| 31 | + subsequent PRs. |
| 32 | +
|
| 33 | +Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP |
| 34 | +marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can |
| 35 | +denote sections that are under active debate as follows: |
| 36 | +
|
| 37 | +``` |
| 38 | +<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>> |
| 39 | +Stuff that is being argued. |
| 40 | +<<[/UNRESOLVED]>> |
| 41 | +``` |
| 42 | +
|
| 43 | +When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions |
| 44 | +focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR |
| 45 | +with suggested changes. |
| 46 | +
|
| 47 | +One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle. |
| 48 | +You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If |
| 49 | +new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become |
| 50 | +"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs. |
| 51 | +
|
| 52 | +The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source |
| 53 | +of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md). |
| 54 | +
|
| 55 | +**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable`, or significant changes once |
| 56 | +it is marked `implementable`, must be approved by each of the KEP approvers. |
| 57 | +If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list |
| 58 | +should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or |
| 59 | +SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs). |
| 60 | +--> |
| 61 | +# KEP-NNNN: Beta Feature Gate Promotion Requirements |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +<!-- |
| 64 | +This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good |
| 65 | +title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of |
| 66 | +any review. |
| 67 | +--> |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +<!-- |
| 70 | +A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for |
| 71 | +highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP |
| 72 | +template. |
| 73 | +
|
| 74 | +Ensure the TOC is wrapped with |
| 75 | + <code><!-- toc --&rt;<!-- /toc --&rt;</code> |
| 76 | +tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`. |
| 77 | +--> |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +<!-- toc --> |
| 80 | +- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist) |
| 81 | +- [Summary](#summary) |
| 82 | +- [Motivation](#motivation) |
| 83 | + - [Goals](#goals) |
| 84 | + - [Non-Goals](#non-goals) |
| 85 | +- [Proposal](#proposal) |
| 86 | + - [User Stories (Optional)](#user-stories-optional) |
| 87 | + - [Story 1](#story-1) |
| 88 | + - [Story 2](#story-2) |
| 89 | + - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional) |
| 90 | + - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations) |
| 91 | +- [Design Details](#design-details) |
| 92 | + - [Test Plan](#test-plan) |
| 93 | + - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates) |
| 94 | + - [Unit tests](#unit-tests) |
| 95 | + - [Integration tests](#integration-tests) |
| 96 | + - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests) |
| 97 | + - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria) |
| 98 | + - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy) |
| 99 | + - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy) |
| 100 | +- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire) |
| 101 | + - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback) |
| 102 | + - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning) |
| 103 | + - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements) |
| 104 | + - [Dependencies](#dependencies) |
| 105 | + - [Scalability](#scalability) |
| 106 | + - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting) |
| 107 | +- [Implementation History](#implementation-history) |
| 108 | +- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks) |
| 109 | +- [Alternatives](#alternatives) |
| 110 | +- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional) |
| 111 | +<!-- /toc --> |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +## Release Signoff Checklist |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +<!-- |
| 116 | +**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an |
| 117 | +issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release |
| 118 | +milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases) |
| 119 | +of the targeted release**. |
| 120 | +
|
| 121 | +For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core |
| 122 | +Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release |
| 123 | +Signoff checklist to be completed. |
| 124 | +
|
| 125 | +Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These |
| 126 | +checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released. |
| 127 | +--> |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*. |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR) |
| 132 | +- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable` |
| 133 | +- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented |
| 134 | +- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors) |
| 135 | + - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints) |
| 136 | + - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) |
| 137 | + - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free |
| 138 | +- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place |
| 139 | + - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) |
| 140 | +- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed |
| 141 | +- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved |
| 142 | +- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone |
| 143 | +- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io] |
| 144 | +- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +<!-- |
| 147 | +**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone. |
| 148 | +--> |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/ |
| 151 | +[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements |
| 152 | +[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes |
| 153 | +[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +## Summary |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +Features gates must include all functional, security, and testing requirements along with |
| 158 | +resolving all issues and gaps identified prior to being enabled by default. |
| 159 | +The only valid GA criteria are “all issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved”. |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +## Motivation |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +Features gates that are enabled by default are enabled in every production Kubernetes cluster in the world. |
| 164 | +We must avoid making every production cluster into unstable or incomplete feature testing clusters. |
| 165 | +Even feature gates that make flags accessible, but require a secondary configuration to use must be |
| 166 | +stable, because it is unrealistic to expect everyone to understand the graduation stages of various flags |
| 167 | +for each release: the only stages that really matter are "takes enabling an explicit alpha feature gate" |
| 168 | +and "my production cluster accepts this as valid by default". |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | +### Goals |
| 171 | + |
| 172 | +* Features gates must include all functional, security, and testing requirements along with |
| 173 | + resolving all issues and gaps identified prior to being enabled by default. |
| 174 | +* The only valid GA criteria are “all issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved”. |
| 175 | + |
| 176 | +### Non-Goals |
| 177 | + |
| 178 | +* Changing beta APIs off by default rules. |
| 179 | +* Change the imperfect mechanisms we have for API evolution. |
| 180 | + |
| 181 | +## Proposal |
| 182 | + |
| 183 | +Kubernetes feature gates have three levels: GA, Beta, and Alpha. |
| 184 | +1. GA means that a feature gate is unconditionally enabled in all production kubernetes clusters and |
| 185 | + that feature cannot be disabled. |
| 186 | +2. Beta means that a feature gate is usually enabled in all production Kubernetes clusters by default |
| 187 | + and that feature can be disabled. |
| 188 | + Exceptions exist for entirely new APIs and some node features, but this broadly the case. |
| 189 | +3. Alpha means that a feature gate is disabled in all production Kubernetes clusters by default and |
| 190 | + can be optionally enabled by setting a `--feature-gate` command line argument. |
| 191 | + |
| 192 | +Making the jump to GA (cannot be disabled), without actual field experience is irresponsible. |
| 193 | +The first time we take a feature gate enabled by default in production Kubernetes clusters, we must |
| 194 | +have a way to disable the feature in case of unexpected stability, performance, or security issues. |
| 195 | + |
| 196 | +Enabling incomplete features in production Kubernetes clusters by default is irresponsible. |
| 197 | +Features that are known to be incomplete naturally bring with them additional stability, performance, and security issues. |
| 198 | +Once a feature has been enabled in a production Kubernetes cluster by default, adding to it carries |
| 199 | +greater risk to upgrading clusters and the ecosystem. |
| 200 | +The feature can easily have become relied upon by workloads and other platform extensions. |
| 201 | +If an accident happens in adding those capabilities with stability, performance, and security the |
| 202 | +cost to disable those features in a cluster becomes significantly greater and breaks existing |
| 203 | +clusters, workloads and use-cases. |
| 204 | +This posture makes upgrades higher risk than necessary. |
| 205 | + |
| 206 | +To balance these concerns, we are changing how we evaluate Beta and GA stability criteria. |
| 207 | +The only valid GA criteria are “all issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved”. |
| 208 | +Promotion from Beta to GA must be zero-diff for the release. |
| 209 | +This means that Beta criteria must include all functional, security, and testing requirements along |
| 210 | +with resolving all issues and gaps identified prior to beta. |
| 211 | + |
| 212 | +Phasing in larger features over time can be done by bringing separate feature gates through alpha, beta, and GA. |
| 213 | +Each feature gate needs to meet the beta and GA criteria for completeness, functional, security, and testing. |
| 214 | +After meeting hte criteria for enabled by default, and at the sig's discretion, the new feature gate could be |
| 215 | +set to enabled by default in the release it is introduced. |
| 216 | +Importantly, the features need to behave in a way that allows old and new clients to interoperate and new additions |
| 217 | +to larger features able to be independently disablable with their own path for GA. |
| 218 | + |
| 219 | +### Risks and Mitigations |
| 220 | + |
| 221 | +#### What if I need to add capability to my feature? |
| 222 | +To handle this situation, we described above how to add second feature gate for the new behavior. |
| 223 | +This provides a mechanism for adding needed capability, but ensures that |
| 224 | +cluster-admins never end up stuck after upgrade because they rely on v1.Y-1 behavior that new capability |
| 225 | +in v1.Y broke under the same feature gate. |
| 226 | + |
| 227 | +#### Who will make sure that new KEPs follow the promotion rules? |
| 228 | +We'll adjust the KEP template to indicate the allowed criteria, so authors should notice. |
| 229 | +SIG approvers should enforce those standards. |
| 230 | +PRR approvers can be a final backstop. |
| 231 | + |
| 232 | +### Graduation Criteria |
| 233 | + |
| 234 | +This document is our new position once merged until it is superceded by another position statement. |
| 235 | + |
| 236 | +## Drawbacks |
| 237 | + |
| 238 | +### This may slow the rate that new features are promoted. |
| 239 | +For this to be true, that would mean that we previously enabled feature gates in production that were knowingly |
| 240 | +incomplete for functional, security, testing, or known bugs. |
| 241 | +We hope this was not the common case, but if it was the common enough to have an impact, we're pleased that |
| 242 | +the result is preventing incomplete feature gates from being enabled in production clusters. |
| 243 | + |
| 244 | +## Alternatives |
| 245 | + |
| 246 | +None proposed so far. |
0 commit comments