reopen KEP 1860

RyanAoh · RyanAoh · commit 30f6073da4b9 · 2023-07-26T14:45:03.000+08:00
diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1860.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1860.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# The KEP must have an approver from the
+# "prod-readiness-approvers" group 
+# of http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES
+kep-number: 1860
+alpha:
+  approver: "@wojtek-t"
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/README.md b/keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/README.md
@@ -23,6 +23,13 @@
   - [Beta/GA](#betaga)
   - [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)
 <!-- /toc -->
 
 ## Release Signoff Checklist
@@ -32,13 +39,17 @@ Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*
 - [x] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
 - [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
 - [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
-- [x] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
-- [x] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+- [ ] (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
-- [ ] Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] (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
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
 
 
 ## Summary
@@ -122,7 +133,6 @@ API changes to Service:
 Unit tests:
 - unit tests for the ipvs and iptables rules
 - unit tests for the validation
-- unit tests for a new util in pkg/proxy
 
 E2E tests:
 - The default behavior for `ipMode` does not break any existing e2e tests
@@ -149,3 +159,284 @@ On downgrade, the feature gate will simply be disabled, and as long as `kube-pro
 ### Version Skew Strategy
 
 Version skew from the control plane to `kube-proxy` should be trivial since `kube-proxy` will simply ignore the `ipMode` field.
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+- [x] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: LoadBalancerIPMode
+  - Components depending on the feature gate: kube-proxy, kube-apiserver
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+No.
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Yes.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+The forwarding rules for services which have the value of `ipMode` set to "Proxy" will be removed by kube-proxy.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+Yes. There are some unit tests and an integration test added for this feature enablement/disablement.
+
+### 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.)
+-->
+
+###### 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)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+###### 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)
+-->
+
+###### 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
+-->
+
+###### 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
+-->
+
+###### 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?
+-->
+
+### 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?
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-network/1860-kube-proxy-IP-node-binding/kep.yaml
@@ -14,18 +14,18 @@ approvers:
   - "@thockin"
   - "@andrewsykim"
 
-# latest-milestone: "v1.21"
+stage: "alpha"
+
+latest-milestone: "v1.29"
 
 milestone:
-  alpha: "v1.21"
-  beta: "v1.22"
+  alpha: "v1.29"
+  beta: "v1.30"
+  stable: "v1.31"
 
 feature-gates:
   - name: LoadBalancerIPMode
     components:
       - kube-apiserver
       - kube-proxy
 disable-supported: true
-
-latest-milestone: "0.0"
-stage: "alpha"
