Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Implementing policy attachment GEP #736
Implementing policy attachment GEP #736
Changes from 3 commits
725dd0b
cb8e97d
fa70c18
f35e993
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
So, let's say we have gateway-a in gateway-ns namespace and route-b in route-ns namespace.
If I've a policy that in gateway-ns that targets a route-b and I also have a policy in route-ns that targets route-b, the hierarchy is policy in gateway-ns > policy in route-ns.
Is that right?
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.
Yes, that's my interpretation, but you've got me thinking that we may want to add more restrictions around cross-namespace policy attachment. I think the primary use case was for a mesh implementation to be able to apply policy to requests originating from the local namespace to a given destination. There's clearly also use cases for Gateway as you described above, but they may become messier than intended and/or be difficult for an implementation to support. I was about to suggest that we should make this an "Extended" concept, but the whole idea of policy attachment is already extended. So that's a long way of saying that I think your interpretation is correct, but we probably need to communicate that implementations can choose to not support cross-namespace policy.
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 we are not sure, I recommend keeping cross-namespace policy for gateway out of scope. There is a need for sure but punting on would be for the best. There are a lot of other features here and we shouldn't feel pressured.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.