gep: refine CACertificateRefs description for frontend TLS #4183
+56
−21
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <norwin.schnyder+github@gmail.com>
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note-none
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: snorwin The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/hold
Member
Author
Member
Author
|
/retest |
root30
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
root30
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
kl52752
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
rikatz
reviewed
Oct 20, 2025
Signed-off-by: Norwin Schnyder <norwin.schnyder+github@gmail.com>
snorwin
commented
Oct 24, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
What this PR does / why we need it:
In the current version of GEP-91, the semantics of an invalid
CACertificateRefsare not fully specified. In addition, it is unclear whether theInsecureFrontendValidationModecondition should ever be removed or set to False.This PR clarifies the expected behavior by aligning the semantics of invalid references in frontend validation with the patterns already established in BackendTLSPolicy and the approach proposed in #4123 for backend TLS configuration on the Gateway.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: