Skip to content

GEP-1713 Revisions #3744

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

GEP-1713 Revisions #3744

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor

  • formatting
  • clarify optional port semantics
  • clarify listener name semantics
  • Clarify Route attachment without sectionName, re-order policy attachment section, include a section about referencegrants

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind gep

What this PR does / why we need it:

As folks are implementing ListenerSets some clarifying questions came up and I thought it'd be good to revise the GEP with the answers.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes N/A

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 13, 2025
@dprotaso
clarify attachment/grants semantics
c1eac08 
- Route attachment without sectionName
- re-order policy attachment section
- include a section about ReferenceGrants
@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from daaa5f1 to c1eac08 Compare April 13, 2025 19:34
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @howardjohn

@dprotaso
set proper min/max value for listenerentry.port
4835e67 
We had to drop the use of the PortNumber type because of
limitations with overriding min max using kubebuilder
annotations
dprotaso
dprotaso commented Apr 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
youngnick
youngnick reviewed Apr 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

Couple of small wording things, but aside from that, the GEP changes look good to me.

The point about non-distinct name fields probably needs to be in the XListenerSet docstrings somewhere (since the specification is currently only in the .go files).

@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from 64832c3 to b1e12f7 Compare April 17, 2025 05:16
@dprotaso dprotaso force-pushed the gep-1713-revisions branch from b1e12f7 to 8d6183c Compare April 17, 2025 05:16
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

I pulled the Port API changes into a separate PR - #3750

@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented May 6, 2025

bump

youngnick
youngnick reviewed May 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

This LGTM now, so I'll approve.

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dprotaso, youngnick

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:

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

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label May 9, 2025
@dprotaso
Copy link
Contributor Author

dprotaso commented May 9, 2025

@youngnick who should drop the hold?

@youngnick
Copy link
Contributor

We need someone else to lgtm and drop the hold here.

@robscott @mlavacca @shaneutt ?

robscott
robscott reviewed May 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@robscott robscott left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @dprotaso!

geps/gep-1713/index.md
// a unique port. If the implementation does not support dynamic port
// assignment, it MUST set `Accepted` condition to `False` with the
// `UnsupportedPort` reason.
//
// Support: Core
//
// +optional
Port *PortNumber `json:"port,omitempty"`
//
// +kubebuilder:validation:Minimum=0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you mind leaving this change out until we have docs for ListenerSet? At this point these are the only docs we have for ListenerSet, so I'd rather this match what's been released in the API until we can add those. (

gateway-api/apisx/v1alpha1/xlistenerset_types.go

Line 130 in b9062b7

Port PortNumber `json:"port"`
)

robscott
robscott reviewed May 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
geps/gep-1713/index.md
Comment on lines +393 to +395
#### Port

`Port` is now optional to allow for dynamic port assignment. If the port is unspecified or set to zero, the implementation will assign a unique port. If the implementation does not support dynamic port assignment, it MUST set `Accepted` condition to `False` with the `UnsupportedPort` reason.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same comment as above - would rather leave this out until we have docs that match current state

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@robscott robscott robscott left review comments

@youngnick youngnick youngnick left review comments

@kflynn kflynn Awaiting requested review from kflynn

@mikemorris mikemorris Awaiting requested review from mikemorris

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. kind/cleanup Categorizes issue or PR as related to cleaning up code, process, or technical debt. kind/gep PRs related to Gateway Enhancement Proposal(GEP) release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@dprotaso @youngnick @k8s-ci-robot @robscott