diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5067.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5067.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5b04bcc7da9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5067.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 5067
+alpha:
+  approver: "johnbelamaric"
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/README.md b/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4dd39c3424d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1143 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+* [x] **Pick a hosting SIG.**
+  Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking
+  up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG.
+* [x] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all
+  fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You
+  can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the
+  enhancement and add the link.
+* [x] **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.
+* [x] **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.
+* [x] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+* [x] **Create a PR for this KEP.**
+  Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process.
+* [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+
+Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP
+marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can
+denote sections that are under active debate as follows:
+
+```
+<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>>
+Stuff that is being argued.
+<<[/UNRESOLVED]>>
+```
+
+When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions
+focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR
+with suggested changes.
+
+One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle.
+You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If
+new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become
+"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs.
+
+The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source
+of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md).
+
+**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable` , or significant changes once
+it is marked `implementable` , must be approved by each of the KEP approvers.
+If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
+should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
+SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
+-->
+
+# KEP-5067: Pod Generation
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for
+highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP
+template.
+
+Ensure the TOC is wrapped with
+  <code>&lt; !-- toc --&rt; &lt; !-- /toc --&rt; </code>
+tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh` .
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Current behavior](#current-behavior)
+  - [API Changes](#api-changes)
+    - [Generation](#generation)
+    - [ObservedGeneration](#observedgeneration)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+    - [Custom-set <code>metadata.generation</code>](#custom-set-metadatageneration)
+    - [Infinite loop caused by misbehaving mutating webhooks](#infinite-loop-caused-by-misbehaving-mutating-webhooks)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+    - [API server and generation](#api-server-and-generation)
+      - [Client requests to update generation](#client-requests-to-update-generation)
+    - [Kubelet and observedGeneration](#kubelet-and-observedgeneration)
+      - [Mutable Fields Analysis](#mutable-fields-analysis)
+    - [Other writers of pod status](#other-writers-of-pod-status)
+    - [Client requests to update observedGeneration](#client-requests-to-update-observedgeneration)
+    - [Mirror pods](#mirror-pods)
+    - [Future enhancements](#future-enhancements)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+      - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
+      - [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
+      - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
+      - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+    - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
+    - [GA](#ga)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+* [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+* [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+* [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+* [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  + [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  + [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) 
+  + [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+* [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  + [ ] (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) 
+* [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+* [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
+* [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+* [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+* [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+<!--
+This section is incredibly important for producing high-quality, user-focused
+documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be
+possible to collect this information before implementation begins, in order to
+avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release
+notes and implementing the feature itself. KEP editors and SIG Docs
+should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is
+useful for a wide audience.
+
+A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
+
+Both in this section and below, follow the guidelines of the [documentation
+style guide]. In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it
+easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on
+updates.
+
+[documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md
+-->
+
+This proposal aims to allow the pod status to express which pod updates are 
+currently being reflected in the pod status. The idea is to leverage the 
+existing `metadata.Generation` field and add a new `status.observedGeneration` field to 
+the pod status. 
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!--
+This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of
+this KEP.  Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The
+motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports] to
+demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community.
+
+[experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports
+-->
+
+One of the motivations for this KEP comes from the existing ResizeStatus field. 
+In its original implementation, the ResizeStatus field was written to by both 
+the API server and the Kubelet, creating a race condition on updates. Removing 
+the Proposed state makes the Kubelet the only writer to that field, but leaves a
+gap in knowing whether the latest resize has been acknowledged by the Kubelet. 
+The changes proposed in this KEP resolve this gap.
+
+The ResizeStatus is used as an example here, but in practice this issue can be 
+generally found in any type of pod update.
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+
+* Provide a general solution for the pod status to express which pod update is 
+currently being reflected.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+
+* Expand the set of mutable fields.
+* Populate `metadata.generation` and `status.ObservedGeneration` on mirror pods.
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
+This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
+you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
+implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
+The "Design Details" section below is for the real
+nitty-gritty.
+-->
+
+### Current behavior
+
+The pod [ `metadata.generation` ](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api-conventions.md#metadata) field does exist today, and is 
+documented as "a sequence number representing a specific generation of the 
+desired state. Set by the system and monotonically increasing, per-resource." 
+
+Its current behavior in pods is:
+
+* Pod `metadata.generation` is not populated by default by the system.
+* The client can custom-set the `metadata.generation` on pod create.
+* `metadata.generation` cannot be updated by the client.
+* `metadata.generation` does not get incremented by the system when the podspec is updated.
+* `metadata.generation` does get incremented by the system when `DeletionTimestamp` is set.
+
+### API Changes
+
+#### Generation
+
+The `metadata.generation` field is currently unused on pods, but we can start 
+leveraging it to help track which pod state is currently being reflected in the 
+pod status. For consistency, pod 
+`metadata.generation` will be incremented whenever the pod has changes that the kubelet
+needs to actuate. 
+
+#### ObservedGeneration
+
+A new optional field `status.observedGeneration` field will be added to the pod status.
+Kubelet will set this to communicate which pod state is being expressed in the 
+current pod status. This is analogous to the `status.observedGeneration` that exists
+in other resources' statuses such as [StatefulSets](https://github.com/kubernetes/api/blob/9e7d345b161c12a3056efa88e285b3ef68450c54/apps/v1/types.go#L274).
+
+The `status.observedGeneration` may not necessarily be a reflection of every single
+field in the pod status. Instead, it reports the latest generation that the kubelet
+has seen. This means that `status.observedGeneration` captures the kubelet's
+decision to admit a change, and acknowledge that it has seen the pod's new spec.
+There are cases when `status.observedGeneration` may be behind - other status values 
+already reflect a next generation, but the next update from kubelet SHOULD bring 
+the `status.observedGeneration` to the current value.
+It also will not necessarily be able to reflect that the kubelet has completed actuation
+of certain fields. There is a field-by-field analysis written up in [this doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-4CR2NmDJotCM13YQyr8OEeGIczlc3WFmV1BhdUrWcw/edit?tab=t.0). We will
+have to carefully document the nuanced meaning of `status.observedGeneration` to avoid confusion. 
+
+Likewise, a new optional `observedGeneration` field will be added to the pod's 
+`status.condition` struct. This is to keep parity with the 
+[metav1. Condition struct](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1/types.go#L1620-L1625). 
+
+The net result will be a new `status.observedGeneration` field for the kubelet
+to express which generation the top-level status relates to, and a new `status.conditions[i].observedGeneration` field for the writer of that condition to express which generation that condition
+relates to.
+
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
+
+<!--
+What are the caveats to the proposal?
+What are some important details that didn't come across above?
+Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
+This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
+-->
+
+Because there is only one singular `status.observedGeneration` in the pod status, only
+one writer can set it. This is consistent with other object types that have
+`status.observedGeneration` , and the expectation is that the primary controller for
+the object sets the field. For a pod, that primary controller is the kubelet, so
+once a pod is bound to a node, we expect that the kubelet on that node is the
+sole writer of `status.observedGeneration`. 
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+Kubernetes ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+
+#### Custom-set `metadata.generation`
+
+Today, it is possible for a client to custom-set a pod's `metadata.generation` on creation, but once
+set, the `metadata.generation` cannot be updated. That means that there is a
+possibility for an external client to be setting `metadata.generation` on pod 
+create and depend on that fixed value somehow in its own reconciliation logic.
+
+That said, the `metadata.generation` field is described as ["set by the system and monotonically increasing"](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api-conventions.md#metadata), 
+and thus it should be clear enough that `metadata.generation` was not intended to be
+used in this way.
+
+#### Infinite loop caused by misbehaving mutating webhooks
+
+It is possible that today there exists mutating webhooks that overwrite a pod's
+status. These older webhooks would not know about `status.observedGeneration` and
+could be clearing it. This would cause an infinite loop of the kubelet
+attempting to update a pod's `status.observedGeneration` and the webhook
+clearing it.
+
+Status-mutating webhooks could break more pod features than just what is
+proposed in this KEP, so we will not attempt to solve this here. This risk can 
+be mitigated by improving the documentation on webhooks and how they can be 
+written to avoid these kinds of scenarios.
+
+Symptoms of this scenario that users can look out for include:
+- Unexpected sudden spikes in pod status update API calls that occur right after
+  either upgrading the kubelet or creating a new status-mutating webhook.
+- `status.observedGeneration` remains unchanged after a pod sync loop even
+  when `metadata.generation` is changing. This occurs because the API server
+  would be preserving any existing value of `status.observedGeneration` whenever
+  the webhook attempts to clear it.
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+#### API server and generation
+
+For a newly created pod, the API server will set `metadata.generation` to 1. For any updates
+to the [PodSpec](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/generated/kubernetes-api/v1.26/#podspec-v1-core), the API server will increment `metadata.generation` by 1. 
+
+As described in the [field-by-field analysis doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-4CR2NmDJotCM13YQyr8OEeGIczlc3WFmV1BhdUrWcw/edit?tab=t.0) above, the PodSpec 
+mutable fields today are:
+- Resources
+- Ephemeral Containers
+- Container image
+- ActiveDeadlineSeconds
+- TerminationGracePeriodSeconds
+- Tolerations
+
+If any new mutable fields are added to the PodSpec in the future, they will also
+cause the API server to increment `metadata.generation`. 
+
+The pod `metadata.generation` will also continue to be incremented on graceful delete or 
+deferred delete, just as the API server currently does for pods and other 
+objects today.
+
+Pod updates that would not result in `metadata.generation` being incremented include:
+* Changes to metadata (with the exception of `DeletionTimestamp`). This means 
+that if a Pod uses the downward API to make pod metadata available to containers, 
+Pod behavior can change without the generation being incremented. We will consider 
+this working as intended.
+* Changes to status.
+
+The logic to set new pods' `metadata.generation` to 1 and to increment `metadata.generation` 
+on update will run after all mutating webhooks have finished. 
+
+##### Client requests to update generation
+
+Any attempts by clients to set or modify the `metadata.generation` field themselves will be
+ignored and overridden by the API Server. This is consistent with existing 
+behavior of the `metadata.generation` field in all other objects. 
+
+#### Kubelet and observedGeneration
+
+When the Kubelet updates the pod status as part of the [pod sync loop](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/45d0fddaf1f24f7b559eb936308ce2aeb9871850/pkg/kubelet/pod_workers.go#L1214), 
+it will set the `status.observedGeneration` in the pod to reflect the pod `metadata.generation` corresponding 
+to the snapshot of the pod currently being synced. That means if the 
+pod spec gets updated concurrently while the kubelet is performing a pod sync loop 
+on a previous update, the `status.observedGeneration` will be behind `metadata.generation`. 
+
+Outside of the pod sync loop, another place where the kubelet sets the pod status is
+when a [pod is rejected (during `HandlePodAdditions`)](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/8770bd58d04555303a3a15b30c245a58723d0f4a/pkg/kubelet/kubelet.go#L2335). This
+code will also be modified to populate `status.observedGeneration` to express which
+`metadata.generation` was rejected. In this case, the kubelet will not be updating the pod
+through the sync loop (due to the rejection).
+
+The only other place where the pod status is updated is the readiness and probe
+updates, but we will leave `status.observedGeneration` unchanged here as the probe that
+updated the status would be the one synced in the last pod sync loop.
+
+##### Mutable Fields Analysis
+
+The [field-by-field analysis doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-4CR2NmDJotCM13YQyr8OEeGIczlc3WFmV1BhdUrWcw/edit?tab=t.0) referenced above
+goes into further detail about what `status.observedGeneration` means in relation
+to the other fieds in the pod status. Here is a summary of the conclusions:
+- For some fields, the allocated spec is reflected directly in the pod status, so
+  their associated generation is reflected directly by `status.observedGeneration`.
+  This is the case for allocated resources, resize status, ephemeral containers.
+- For other fields, the status is an indirect result of actuating the PodSpec,
+  and the associated generation for those fields are from the generation _before_
+  what is reflected by `status.observedGeneration`. This is the case for actual
+  resources, container image, activeDeadlineSeconds, and terminationGracePeriodSeconds.
+
+To keep things simple and avoid having to add a new field to track the latter, the
+kubelet will output the PodSpec `metadata.generation` that was observed at the time
+of the current sync loop, even though the kubelet has not actuated the change yet.
+We will document this very clearly and explicitly to avoid confusion.
+
+#### Other writers of pod status
+
+There are other writers of pod status besides the Kubelet including the scheduler
+and the node lifecycle controller. These should also populate `status.observedGeneration` whenever 
+they make a status update (excluding any updates to pod conditions, which
+have their own dedicated `observedGeneration` field). Once the pod is bound to a node, 
+however, the expectation is that only the kubelet will be writing to `status.observedGeneration`. 
+
+The scheduler and node lifecycle controller also write pod conditions. Whenever 
+they set a pod condition, they should just populate the `condition.observedGeneration` field 
+with the relevant generation.
+
+#### Client requests to update observedGeneration
+
+During status update, if the incoming update clears `status.observedGeneration` back
+to 0, the API server will preserve the previously existing value. All other updates to `status.observedGeneration` will be permitted by the API validation, including
+regressions back to decreasing values.
+
+#### Mirror pods
+
+We will consider populating `metadata.generation` and `status.observedGeneration` out of scope for mirror 
+pods. This means:
+
+* The API server never sets `metadata.generation` for mirror pods.
+* If there is `metadata.generation` or `status.observedGeneration` set in the incoming config for a static pod, we ignore and drop them on the API side.
+* Kubelet never sets `status.observedGeneration` for mirror pods (it will need to explicitly exclude them).
+
+This is because the kubelet currently computes the internal pod UID of a mirror pod
+using a hash of the podspec, meaning that any update to the podspec results in the kubelet
+seeing it as a pod deletion followed by creation of a new pod. This defeats the
+purpose of generation tracking, since the generation of a mirror pod will always
+be 1. To fully support generation for mirror pods, more changes to the kubelet's
+logic will be expected.
+
+#### Future enhancements
+
+We may at some future point reconsider mirror pods and potentially populate
+`metadata.generation` and `status.observedGeneration` on them.
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+
+[x] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
+existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
+to implement this enhancement.
+
+##### Prerequisite testing updates
+
+<!--
+Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
+implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
+-->
+
+##### Unit tests
+
+<!--
+In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
+the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
+However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
+together with explanation why this is acceptable.
+-->
+
+<!--
+Additionally, for Alpha try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
+to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
+in the form of:
+* <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
+The data can be easily read from:
+https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit
+
+This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
+extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
+-->
+
+Unit tests will be implemented to cover code changes that implement the feature, 
+in the API server code and the kubelet code. 
+
+##### Integration tests
+
+<!--
+Integration tests are contained in k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration.
+Integration tests allow control of the configuration parameters used to start the binaries under test.
+This is different from e2e tests which do not allow configuration of parameters.
+Doing this allows testing non-default options and multiple different and potentially conflicting command line options.
+-->
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+-->
+
+Unit and E2E tests provide sufficient coverage for the feature. Integration tests may be added to cover any gaps that are discovered in the future. 
+
+##### e2e tests
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for those tests:
+https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
+
+We expect no non-infra related flakes in the last month as a GA graduation criteria.
+-->
+
+E2E tests will be implemented to cover the following cases:
+* Verify that newly created pods have a `metadata.generation` set to 1.
+* Verify that PodSpec updates (such as tolerations or container images), resize requests, adding ephemeral containers, and binding requests cause the `metadata.generation` to be incremented by 1 for each update.
+* Verify that deletion of a pod causes the `metadata.generation` to be incremented by 1.
+* Issue ~1000 pod updates (1 every 100ms) and verify that `metadata.generation` and `status.observedGeneration` converge to the final expected value.
+* Verify that various conditions each have `observedGeneration` populated. 
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, [feature gate] graduations, or as
+something else. The KEP should keep this high-level with a focus on what
+signals will be looked at to determine graduation.
+
+Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:
+* [Maturity levels (`alpha`,      `beta`,      `stable`)][maturity-levels]
+* [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle
+* [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
+
+Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
+definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
+or by redefining what graduation means.
+
+In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
+functionality is accessed.
+
+[feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
+[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
+
+Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][maturity-levels].
+
+#### Alpha
+
+* Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+* Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+* Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+* Complete features A, B, C
+* Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+
+#### GA
+
+* N examples of real-world usage
+* N installs
+* More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
+* Allowing time for feedback
+
+**Note:** Generally we also wait at least two releases between beta and
+GA/stable, because there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports, 
+in back-to-back releases.
+
+**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
+[conformance tests].**
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+
+#### Deprecation
+
+* Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
+* Two versions passed since introducing the functionality that deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
+* Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
+* Deprecate the flag
+-->
+
+#### Alpha
+
+* Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+* `metadata.generation` functionality implemented
+* `status.observedGeneration` functionality implemented behind feature flag
+* `status.conditions[i].observedGeneration` field added to the API
+
+#### Beta
+
+* `metadata.generation`,  `status.observedGeneration`,  `status.conditions[i].observedGeneration` functionality have been implemented and running as alpha for at least one release
+* `status.conditions[i].observedGeneration` functionality implemented behind feature flag
+
+#### GA
+
+* No major bugs reported for three months. 
+* User feedback (ideally from at least two distinct users) is green.
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+* What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
+* What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
+-->
+
+API server should be upgraded before Kubelets. Kubelets should be downgraded 
+before the API server. 
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
+components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+* Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and nodes?
+* How does an n-3 kubelet or kube-proxy without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+* How does an n-1 kube-controller-manager or kube-scheduler without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+* Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, 
+  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+-->
+
+Previous versions of clients unaware of `metadata.generation` functionality would either 
+not set the pod `metadata.generation` field (having the effective value of 0) or set it to 
+some custom value, though the latter is unlikely. In either case, the API server
+will ignore whatever value of `metadata.generation` is set by the client and will manage 
+`metadata.generation` itself (setting it to 1 for newly created pods, or incrementing it 
+for pod updates).
+
+Already running pods will likewise either not have the pod `metadata.generation` set (and
+thus have a default value of 0), or will have a custom value if `metadata.generation` was
+explicitly set by a client. On the first update after the API server is upgraded, 
+the API server will increment the value of `metadata.generation` by 1 from whatever it
+was set to previously. This means that the first update to a pod that did not
+yet have a `metadata.generation` will now have a `metadata.generation` of 1.
+
+If a pod that has a `metadata.generation` set or incremented via the new API server is
+later updated by an older API server, the older API server will not modify the
+`metadata.generation` field and it will stay fixed at its current value. That means that 
+if there is version skew between multiple apiservers, the `metadata.generation` may or may
+not be incremented. To address this, we will not feature-gate the logic in the
+apiserver that increments `metadata.generation`. That means that by the time 
+ObservedGeneration goes to beta, there will be 2 versions of apiservers updating
+the `metadata.generation` field, removing the issue.
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml` . This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[ `prod-readiness-approvers` ](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+
+Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
+well as the [existing list] of feature gates.
+
+[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
+-->
+
+* [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  + Feature gate name: PodObservedGenerationTracking
+  + Components depending on the feature gate: kubelet, kube-controller-manager, kube-scheduler
+* [x] Other
+  + Describe the mechanism: 
+    - Writers to `status.observedGeneration` will propagate the pod's `metadata.generation`
+      to `status.observedGeneration` if the feature gate is enabled OR
+      if `status.observedGeneration` is already set. We will not attempt to
+      clear `status.observedGeneration` if set in order to avoid an infinite loop
+      between attempting to clear the field and the API server preserving the
+      existing value when an incoming update attempts to clear it.
+  + Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+    plane?
+    - No. 
+  + Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+    of a node?
+    - No.
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+<!--
+Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+automations, so be extremely careful here.
+-->
+
+The pod's `metadata.generation` field is currently unset by default and
+both new `observedGeneration` fields will be new fields in the pod status, so the feature
+will not introduce any breaking changes of default behavior.
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+<!--
+Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
+feature, can it break the existing applications?).
+
+Feature gates are typically disabled by setting the flag to `false` and
+restarting the component. No other changes should be necessary to disable the
+feature.
+
+NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml` .
+-->
+
+The `status.observedGeneration` feature can be disabled by setting the flag to 'false' 
+and restarting the kubelet. Disabling the feature in the kubelet means that the kubelet will not propagate 
+`metadata.generation` to `status.observedGeneration` for new pods. For existing
+pods, if `status.observedGeneration` is already set, the kubelet will continue
+to propagate `metadata.generation` to `status.observedGeneration`. The kubelet will not attempt to clear
+`status.observedGeneration` if set in order to avoid an infinite loop between
+the kubelet attempting to clear the field and the API server preserving the
+existing value when an incoming update attempts to clear it.
+
+Likewise, the `conditions[i].observedGeneration` feature can be disabled by setting
+the flag to 'false' in the kubelet, node lifecycle controller, and scheduler. When
+the feature flag is disabled, the condition's `observedGeneration` will no longer be populated.
+
+The `metadata.generation` functionality will intentionally not be behind a feature gate so cannot be
+disabled except by downgrading the API server.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+The API server will start incrementing `metadata.generation` , the kubelet will start
+setting `status.observedGeneration` , and writers of pod conditions will start
+incrementing those conditions' `observedGeneration` s. 
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+<!--
+The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
+gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
+with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
+conversion tests if API types are being modified.
+
+Additionally, for features that are introducing a new API field, unit tests that
+are exercising the `switch` of feature gate itself (what happens if I disable a
+feature gate after having objects written with the new field) are also critical.
+You can take a look at one potential example of such test in:
+https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282
+-->
+
+Unit tests will be added to cover the code that implements the feature, and will
+cover the cases of the feature gate being both enabled and disabled.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example, 
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g., 
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+-->
+
+* [ ] Events
+  + Event Reason: 
+* [ ] API .status
+  + Condition name: 
+  + Other field: 
+* [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  + Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  + per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  + 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+
+  + 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+* [ ] Metrics
+  + Metric name:
+  + [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  + Components exposing the metric:
+* [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  + Details:
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost, 
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  + [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  + API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  + estimated throughput
+  + originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  + components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  + API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+
+  + periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state, 
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+
+-->
+
+Yes, enabling this feature could result in additional API calls. If the pod
+sync loop results in a new status where `status.observedGeneration` is the only
+status field changed, there will be a new status update call. This can occur
+when a pod generation is updated in the middle of a pod sync loop, but the
+next sync loop does not have any other status changes.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  + API type
+  + Supported number of objects per cluster
+  + Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+
+No, this feature does not introduce any new API types.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  + Which API(s):
+  + Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+No, there will not be any new calls to the cloud provider.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  + API type(s):
+  + Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  + Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+
+Enabling this feature would negligibly increase the size of pods, since
+they will have new fields `metadata.generation` , `status.observedGeneration` , 
+and `conditions[i].observedGeneration` populated. 
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+
+No, this feature will not result in any noticeable performance change.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+
+No, this feature will not increase resource usage.
+
+###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?
+
+<!--
+Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
+(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
+If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
+(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?
+
+Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
+and validate the declared limits?
+-->
+
+No, this feature will not result in resource exhaustion. 
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  + [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+* the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+* the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
+* the date implementation started
+* the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
+* the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
+* when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+We are not currently aware of any drawbacks.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+We could fully reflect the version of the spec that the Kubelet is operating on, 
+such as by adding a "desired resources" field to the status or "observed spec"
+field to the status where we copy the whole podspec in. 
+
+ObservedGeneration is preferable over these alternatives because it expresses
+the same amount of inforrmation while being significantly more concise, and 
+because it is consistent with what other resources such as
+[StatefulSet](https://github.com/kubernetes/api/blob/9e7d345b161c12a3056efa88e285b3ef68450c54/apps/v1/types.go#L274) are already doing.
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f9aa4243acc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5067-pod-generation/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+title: Pod Generation
+kep-number: 5067
+authors:
+  - "@natasha41575"
+  - "@tallclair"
+owning-sig: sig-node
+participating-sigs:
+status: implementable
+creation-date: 2025-01-21
+reviewers:
+  - "@yujuhong"
+  - "@SergeyKanzhelev"
+approvers:
+  - "@liggitt" # API approval
+  - "@dchen1107" # SIG Node approval
+
+see-also:
+  - "keps/sig-node/1287-in-place-update-pod-resources"
+replaces:
+
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.33"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.33"
+  beta: "v1.34"
+  stable: "v1.35"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+  - name: PodObservedGenerationTracking
+    components:
+      - kubelet
+      - kube-controller-manager
+      - kube-scheduler
+disable-supported: true
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at beta release
+metrics: