add dnspolicy #20
add dnspolicy #20
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Most of it (under ## Proposal feels like the # Guide-level explanation afaict?
Also, there @guicassolato had some comments on using a "more standard" label selector.
Anyways, on the merging, the idea is that RFC is full fledged proposal when merging. So since this is all still under "proposal", do we think that is (to the best of our current knowledge) the feature as we'd expose it to users? If so that'd cover the Guide-level explanation section... Reference-level explanation part of how it'd be implemented isn't really much spelled out, is it?
rfcs/0000-dns-policy.md
Outdated
| - Feature Name: DNSPolicy | ||
| - Start Date: 2023-07-01 | ||
| - RFC PR: [Kuadrant/architecture#0000](https://github.com/Kuadrant/architecture/pull/0000) | ||
| - Issue tracking: [Kuadrant/architecture#0000](https://github.com/Kuadrant/architecture/issues/0000) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs, before merging, a matching "tracking" issue. But thinking it might already exist?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated with the best issue for it
|
Yes this has been updated as we have implemented the API so it should be as you say upto date for the guide level. How important is the reference level?
|
|
Moved main body of text to guide-level |
|
@guicassolato wdyt? Merge as is? |
|
@guicassolato @alexsnaps as this a migration from the MGC repo wondering if we can merge at this point or is there something fundamental that needs to be addressed. IE we have already implemented it and documented it so I think any change would be a new RFC possibly? |
|
done |
maleck13
force-pushed
the
dns-policy-migrate
branch
from
1a0d172 to
8ea767a
Compare
|
@alexsnaps @guicassolato woops :) fixed now |
|
@alexsnaps I have done all that was needed I think now, ok to merge? |
|
@guicassolato I made the requested change |
| apiVersion: kuadrant.io/v1alpha1 | ||
| kind: DNSPolicy | ||
| spec: | ||
| targetRef: # defaults to gateway gvk and current namespace |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GVK is required, I'm afraid. Only namespace can be omitted (and assumed.) https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/blob/7042cd866bc69b160ab6d04b51676e14b487505d/apis/v1alpha2/policy_types.go#L24-L41
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good base ref for the work already started around DNSPolicy.
Small comment left about a minor detail required to comply with GW-API PA types that, as of today, would not allow implementing exactly as exemplified, but it's certainly not the main focus of the RFC here, neither its impact on UX is of concern IMO.
I missed something about hostnames specified only at the level of the HTTPRoutes (subdomains), for which one may still want to set LB rules. My understanding is that, while limited to gateways, those would have to be brought up as additional listener definitions, whose limitations are known. I suppose this could be added in the Future Possibilities section or in a future iteration.
|
Thanks @guicassolato yes I think section name support will be something we will look at in the near future |
@alexsnaps this PR moves the content over from the MGC repo to this one for DNSPolicy. Ok to merge?