-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 360
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
Update roadmap for v0.3.0 #695
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Arko Dasgupta <arko@tetrate.io>
ptal @danehans @LukeShu @AliceProxy @Xunzhuo @skriss @youngnick |
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.
Looks fine to me
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.
🚀
docs/latest/design/roadmap.md
Outdated
- Support extended Gateway API fields. | ||
- Support experimental Gateway APIs such as TCPRoute [Issue #643][643], UDPRoute [Issue #641][641] and GRPCRoute [Issue #642][642]. | ||
- Rate Limiting [Issue #670][670]. | ||
- Authentication [Issue #336][336]. |
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.
IMHO this is overpromising. I would like to understand which maintainers will support these features. We should not depend on the community to deliver roadmap features. I'm in the process of updating #336, but this only covers the AuthN design. From recent feedback (#675 #677) and past experience, the AuthN design alone will take time. Since AuthN is laying the foundation for our approach to Gateway API extensions, this may cause a delay in starting #670. What was the conclusion for delaying RL for RLQS?
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.
@danehans I assigned #670 to myself, I can design many aspects of it while waiting on the extension decision.
reg RLQS
- we dont have any info on when it will release
- will it be a better fit than Envoy's native RLS for the Gateway case ?
- will it be more stable ?
so will start the initial design with Envoy RLS, and can raise a follow up issue to consider moving to RLQS when we
have enough data to answer above questions
### [v0.4.0][v0.4.0]: Manageability and Scale | ||
### [v0.4.0][v0.4.0]: More Advanced Features through Extension Mechanisms | ||
|
||
- Allow users to configure xDS Resources [Issue #24][24]. |
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.
I suggest moving some of the v0.3 deliverables to v0.4. Note that the original v0.3 deliverables were based on a 6-month release cycle.
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.
This is my concern too.
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.
one suggestion, but LGTM overall
Signed-off-by: Arko Dasgupta <arko@tetrate.io>
e824506
Signed-off-by: Arko Dasgupta <arko@tetrate.io>
Codecov upload failure, rerunning CI. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #695 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.59% 63.14% -0.46%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 5749 5806 +57
==========================================
+ Hits 3656 3666 +10
- Misses 1867 1909 +42
- Partials 226 231 +5
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
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.
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.
LGTM:)
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.
Since a majority of maintainers have approved, I will not block. I am concerned that we are overcommitted for v0.3 but we can update the roadmap if needed.
Signed-off-by: Arko Dasgupta arko@tetrate.io