-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 502
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.
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
Adding GEP-3567: Gateway TLS Updates for HTTP/2 Connection Coalescing #3572
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: robscott 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 |
geps/gep-3567/index.md
Outdated
|
||
### C) Top Level Gateway TLS Config for Client Cert Validation | ||
|
||
GEP-91 will be updated to move this configuration to a new top level Gateway TLS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is this expected to interact with gateway merging/ListenerSets?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good question. While I think it's reasonable/natural to have SNI determine the cert you're served, I'm less clear on if there's a safe way to have per-SNI client cert validation. This will have to be a follow up in GEP-91, but I'd suggest leaving this concept entirely out of ListenerSet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the record, I have verified that the current ListenerSet GEP excludes client cert validation.
/cc |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this GEP, @robscott!
@robscott: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a relatively small GEP that may not need to be a GEP, but creating one for the purpose of record keeping. Hoping to get at least A and B in v1.3. This is tracked by #3567.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: