Shared with the community
Status: First draft
Last update: 4/20/2017
Authors: Brian Grant, Tim Hockin, and Clayton Coleman
Intended audience: Kubernetes contributors
Table of Contents
This document describes the ongoing architectural development of the Kubernetes system, and the motivations behind it. System developers wanting to extend or customize Kubernetes should use this document as a guide to inform where and how best to implement these enhancements. Application developers wanting to develop large, portable and/or future-proof Kubernetes applications may refer to this document for guidance on which parts of Kubernetes they can rely on being present now and in the future.
The layers of the architecture are named and described (see the diagram below). Distinctions are drawn between what exists today and what we plan to provide in future, and why.
Succinctly, the layers comprise:
The Nucleus which provides standardized API and execution machinery, including basic REST mechanics, security, individual Pod, container, network interface and storage volume management, all of which are extensible via well-defined interfaces. The Nucleus is non-optional and expected to be the most stable part of the system.
The Application Management Layer which provides basic deployment and routing, including self-healing, scaling, service discovery, load balancing and traffic routing. This is often referred to as orchestration and the service fabric. Default implementations of all functions are provided, but conformant replacements are permitted.
The Governance Layer which provides higher level automation and policy enforcement, including single- and multi-tenancy, metrics, intelligent autoscaling and provisioning, and schemes for authorization, quota, network, and storage policy expression and enforcement. These are optional, and achievable via other solutions.
The Interface Layer which provides commonly used libraries, tools, UI’s and systems used to interact with the Kubernetes API.
The Ecosystem which includes everything else associated with Kubernetes, and is not really “part of” Kubernetes at all. This is where most of the development happens, and includes CI/CD, middleware, logging, monitoring, data processing, PaaS, serverless/FaaS systems, workflow, container runtimes, image registries, node and cloud provider management, and many others.
Kubernetes is a platform for deploying and managing containers. For more information about the mission, scope, and design of Kubernetes, see What Is Kubernetes and the architectural overview. The latter also describes the current breakdown of the system into components/processes.
Contributors to Kubernetes need to know what functionality they can rely upon when adding new features to different parts of the system.
Additionally, one of the problems that faces platforms like Kubernetes is to define what is “in” and what is “out”. While Kubernetes must offer some base functionality on which users can rely when running their containerized applications or building their extensions, Kubernetes cannot and should not try to solve every problem that users have. Adding to the difficulty is that, unlike some other types of infrastructure services such as databases, load balancers, or messaging systems, there are few obvious, natural boundaries for the “built-in” functionality. Consequently, reasonable minds can disagree on exactly where the boundaries lie or what principles guide the decisions.
This document, which was inspired by similar efforts from the community, aims to clarify the intentions of the Kubernetes’s architecture SIG. It is currently somewhat aspirational, and is intended to be a blueprint for ongoing and future development. NIY marks items not yet implemented as of the lated updated date at the head of this document.
Just as Linux has a kernel, core system libraries, and optional userland tools, Kubernetes also has “layers” of functionality and tools. An understanding of these layers is important for developers of Kubernetes functionality to determine which cross-concept dependencies should be allowed and which should not.
Kubernetes APIs, concepts, and functionality can be sorted into the following layers.
Essential API and execution machinery.
These APIs and functions, implemented by the upstream Kubernetes codebase, comprise the bare minimum set of features and concepts needed to build up the higher-order layers of the system. These pieces are thoroughly specified and documented, and every containerized application will use them. Developers can safely assume they are present.
They should eventually become stable and “boring”. However, Linux has continuously evolved over its 25-year lifetime and major changes, including NPTL (which required rebuilding all applications) and features that enable containers (which are changing how all applications are run), have been added over the past 10 years. It will take some time for Kubernetes to stabilize, as well.
Kubernetes clusters provide a collection of similar REST APIs, exposed by the Kubernetes API server, supporting primarily CRUD operations on (mostly) persistent resources. These APIs serve as the hub of its control plane.
REST APIs that follow Kubernetes API conventions (path conventions, standard metadata, …) are automatically able to benefit from shared API services (authorization, authentication, audit logging) and generic client code can interact with them (CLI and UI discoverability, generic status reporting in UIs and CLIs, generic waiting conventions for orchestration tools, watching, label selection).
The lowest layer of the system also needs to support extension mechanisms necessary to add the functionality provided by the higher layers. Additionally, this layer must be suitable for use both in single-purpose clusters and highly tenanted clusters. The nucleus should provide sufficient flexibility that higher-level APIs could introduce new scopes (sets of resources) without compromising the security model of the cluster.
Kubernetes cannot function without this basic API machinery and semantics, including:
Authentication: The authentication scheme is a critical function that must be agreed upon by both the server and clients. The API server supports basic auth (username/password) (NOTE: We will likely deprecate basic auth eventually.), X.509 client certificates, OpenID Connect tokens, and bearer tokens, any of which (but not all) may be disabled. Clients should support all forms supported by kubeconfig. Third-party authentication systems may implement the TokenReview API and configure the authentication webhook to call it, though choice of a non-standard authentication mechanism may limit the number of usable clients.
The TokenReview API (same schema as the hook) enables external authentication checks, such as by Kubelet
Pod identity is provided by “service accounts“
Authorization: Third-party authorization systems may implement the SubjectAccessReview API and configure the authorization webhook to call it.
REST semantics, watch, durability and consistency guarantees, API versioning, defaulting, and validation
NIY: Built-in admission-control semantics, synchronous admission-control hooks, and asynchronous resource initialization – it needs to be possible for distribution vendors, system integrators, and cluster administrators to impose additional policies and automation
NIY: API registration and discovery, including API aggregation, to register additional APIs, to find out which APIs are supported, and to get the details of supported operations, payloads, and result schemas
NIY: ThirdPartyResource and ThirdPartyResourceData APIs (or their successors), to support third-party storage and extension APIs
NIY: An extensible and HA-compatible replacement for the /componentstatuses API to determine whether the cluster is fully turned up and operating correctly: ExternalServiceProvider (component registration)
The Endpoints API (and future evolutions thereof), which is needed for component registration, self-publication of API server endpoints, and HA rendezvous, as well as application-layer target discovery
The Namespace API, which is the means of scoping user resources, and namespace lifecycle (e.g., bulk deletion)
The Event API, which is the means of reporting significant occurrences, such as status changes and errors, and Event garbage collection
NIY: Cascading-deletion garbage collector, finalization, and orphaning
NIY: We need a built-in add-on manager (not unlike static pod manifests, but at the cluster level) so that we can automatically add self-hosted components and dynamic configuration to the cluster, and so we can factor out functionality from existing components in running clusters. At its core would be a pull-based declarative reconciler, as provided by the current add-on manager and as described in the whitebox app management doc. This would be easier once we have apply support in the API.
Add-ons should be cluster services that are managed as part of the cluster and that provide the same degree of multi-tenancy as that provided by the cluster.
They may, but are not required to, run in the kube-system namespace, but the chosen namespace needs to be chosen such that it won’t conflict with users’ namespaces.
The API server acts as the gateway to the cluster. By definition, the API server must be accessible by clients from outside the cluster, whereas the nodes, and certainly pods, may not be. Clients authenticate the API server and also use it as a bastion and proxy/tunnel to nodes and pods (and services), using /proxy and /portforward APIs.
TBD: The CertificateSigningRequest API, to enable credential generation, in particular to mint Kubelet credentials
Ideally, this nuclear API server would only support the minimum required APIs, and additional functionality would be added via aggregation, hooks, initializers, and other extension mechanisms.
Note that the centralized asynchronous controllers, such as garbage collection, are currently run by a separate process, called the Controller Manager.
/healthz and /metrics endpoints may be used for cluster management mechanisms, but are not considered part of the supported API surface, and should not be used by clients generally in order to detect cluster presence. The /version endpoint should be used instead.
The API server depends on the following external components:
The API server may depend on:
TokenReview API implementer
SubjectAccessReview API implementer
The most important and most prominent controller in Kubernetes is the Kubelet, which is the primary implementer of the Pod and Node APIs that drive the container execution layer. Without these APIs, Kubernetes would just be a CRUD-oriented REST application framework backed by a key-value store (and perhaps the API machinery will eventually be spun out as an independent project).
Kubernetes executes isolated application containers as its default, native mode of execution. Kubernetes provides Pods that can host multiple containers and storage volumes as its fundamental execution primitive.
The Kubelet API surface and semantics include:
The Pod API, the Kubernetes execution primitive, including:
Pod feasibility-based admission control based on policies in the Pod API (resource requests, node selector, node/pod affinity and anti-affinity, taints and tolerations). API admission control may reject pods or add additional scheduling constraints to them, but Kubelet is the final arbiter of what pods can and cannot run on a given node, not the schedulers or DaemonSets.
Container and volume semantics and lifecycle
Pod IP address allocation (a routable IP address per pod is required)
A mechanism (i.e., ServiceAccount) to tie a Pod to a specific security scope
NIY: Container and image volumes (and deprecate gitRepo)
NIY: Claims against local storage, so that complex templating or separate configs are not needed for dev vs. prod application manifests
flexVolume (which should replace built-in cloud-provider-specific volumes)
Subresources: binding, status, exec, logs, attach, portforward, proxy
NIY: Checkpointing of API resources for availability and bootstrapping
Container image and log lifecycles
The Secret API, and mechanisms to enable third-party secret management
The ConfigMap API, for component configuration as well as Pod references
The Node API, hosts for Pods
Node and pod networks and their controllers (route controller)
Node inventory, health, and reachability (node controller)
Terminated-pod garbage collection
The PersistentVolume API
The PersistentVolumeClaim API
Again, centralized asynchronous functions, such as terminated-pod garbage collection, are performed by the Controller Manager.
The Controller Manager and Kubelet currently call out to a “cloud provider” interface to query information from the infrastructure layer and/or to manage infrastructure resources. However, we’re working to extract those touchpoints (issue) into external components. The intended model is that unsatisfiable application/container/OS-level requests (e.g., Pods, PersistentVolumeClaims) serve as a signal to external “dynamic provisioning” systems, which would make infrastructure available to satisfy those requests and represent them in Kubernetes using infrastructure resources (e.g., Nodes, PersistentVolumes), so that Kubernetes could bind the requests and infrastructure resources together.
The Kubelet depends on the following external components:
Container Runtime Interface implementation
Container Network Interface implementation
FlexVolume implementations (“CVI” in the diagram)
And may depend on:
NIY: Cloud-provider node plug-in, to provide node identity, topology, etc.
NIY: Third-party secret management system (e.g., Vault)
NIY: Credential generation and rotation controller
Accepted layering violations:
The kubernetes service for the API server
The application management and composition layer, providing self-healing, scaling, application lifecycle management, service discovery, load balancing, and routing – also known as orchestration and the service fabric.
These APIs and functions are REQUIRED for any distribution of Kubernetes. Kubernetes should provide default implementations for these APIs, but replacements of the implementations of any or all of these functions are permitted, provided the conformance tests pass. Without these, most containerized applications will not run, and few, if any, published examples will work. The vast majority of containerized applications will use one or more of these.
Kubernetes’s API provides IaaS-like container-centric primitives and also lifecycle controllers to support orchestration (self-healing, scaling, updates, termination) of all major categories of workloads. These application management, composition, discovery, and routing APIs and functions include:
A default scheduler, which implements the scheduling policies in the Pod API: resource requests, nodeSelector, node and pod affinity/anti-affinity, taints and tolerations. The scheduler runs as a separate process, on or outside the cluster.
NIY: A rescheduler, to reactively and proactively delete scheduled pods so that they can be replaced and rescheduled to other nodes.
Continuously running applications: These application types should all support rollouts (and rollbacks) via declarative updates, cascading deletion, and orphaning/adoption. Other than DaemonSet, all should support horizontal scaling.
The Deployment API, which orchestrates updates of stateless applications, including subresources (status, scale, rollback)
The DaemonSet API, for cluster services, including subresources (status)
The StatefulSet API, for stateful applications, including subresources (status, scale)
The PodTemplate API, used by DaemonSet and StatefulSet to record change history
Terminating batch applications: These should include support for automatic culling of terminated jobs (NIY).
The Job API (GC discussion)
The CronJob API
Discovery, load balancing, and routing
The Service API, including allocation of cluster IPs, repair on service allocation maps, load balancing via kube-proxy or equivalent, and automatic Endpoints generation, maintenance, and deletion for services. NIY: LoadBalancer service support is OPTIONAL, but conformance tests must pass if it is supported. If/when they are added, support for LoadBalancer and LoadBalancerClaim APIs should be present if and only if the distribution supports LoadBalancer services.
The Ingress API, including internal L7 (NIY)
Service DNS. DNS, using the official Kubernetes schema, is required.
The application layer may depend on:
Identity provider (to-cluster identities and/or to-application identities)
NIY: Cloud-provider controller implementation
Replacement and/or additional schedulers and/or reschedulers
Replacement DNS service
Replacement for kube-proxy
Replacement and/or auxiliary workload controllers, especially for extended rollout strategies
Policy enforcement and higher-level automation.
These APIs and functions should be optional for running applications, and should be achievable via other solutions.
Each supported API/function should be applicable to a large fraction of enterprise operations, security, and/or governance scenarios.
It needs to be possible to configure and discover default policies for the cluster (perhaps similar to Openshift’s new project template mechanism, but supporting multiple policy templates, such as for system namespaces vs. user ones), to support at least the following use cases:
Is this a: (source: multi-tenancy working doc)
Single tenant / single user cluster
Multiple trusted tenant cluster
Production vs. dev cluster
Highly tenanted playground cluster
Segmented cluster for reselling compute / app services to others
Do I care about limiting:
Internal segmentation of nodes
Automation APIs and functions:
The Metrics APIs (needed for H/V autoscaling, scheduling TBD)
The HorizontalPodAutoscaler API
NIY: The vertical pod autoscaling API(s)
The PodDisruptionBudget API
Dynamic volume provisioning, for at least one volume source type
Dynamic load-balancer provisioning
NIY: The PodPreset API
NIY: The service broker/catalog APIs
NIY: The Template and TemplateInstance APIs
Policy APIs and functions:
Authorization: The ABAC and RBAC authorization policy schemes.
The LimitRange API
The ResourceQuota API
The PodSecurityPolicy API
The ImageReview API
The NetworkPolicy API
The management layer may depend on:
Network policy enforcement mechanism
Replacement and/or additional horizontal and vertical pod autoscalers
Dynamic volume provisioners
Dynamic load-balancer provisioners
Metrics monitoring pipeline, or a replacement for it
These mechanisms are suggested for distributions, and also are available for download and installation independently by users. They include commonly used libraries, tools, systems, and UIs developed by official Kubernetes projects, though other tools may be used to accomplish the same tasks. They may be used by published examples.
Commonly used libraries, tools, systems, and UIs developed under some Kubernetes-owned GitHub org.
Kubectl – We see kubectl as one of many client tools, rather than as a privileged one. Our aim is to make kubectl thinner, by moving commonly used non-trivial functionality into the API. This is necessary in order to facilitate correct operation across Kubernetes releases, to facilitate API extensibility, to preserve the API-centric Kubernetes ecosystem model, and to simplify other clients, especially non-Go clients.
Client libraries (e.g., client-go, client-python)
Cluster federation (API server, controllers, kubefed)
These components may depend on:
Kubectl extensions (discoverable via help)
Helm extensions (discoverable via help)
These things are not really “part of” Kubernetes at all.
There are a number of areas where we have already defined clear-cut boundaries for Kubernetes.
While Kubernetes must offer functionality commonly needed to deploy and manage containerized applications, as a general rule, we preserve user choice in areas complementing Kubernetes’s general-purpose orchestration functionality, especially areas that have their own competitive landscapes comprised of numerous solutions satisfying diverse needs and preferences. Kubernetes may provide plug-in APIs for such solutions, or may expose general-purpose APIs that could be implemented by multiple backends, or expose APIs that such solutions can target. Sometimes, the functionality can compose cleanly with Kubernetes without explicit interfaces.
Additionally, to be considered part of Kubernetes, a component would need to follow Kubernetes design conventions. For instance, systems whose primary interfaces are domain-specific languages (e.g., Puppet, Open Policy Agent) aren’t compatible with the Kubernetes API-centric approach, and are perfectly fine to use with Kubernetes, but wouldn’t be considered to be part of Kubernetes. Similarly, solutions designed to support multiple platforms likely wouldn’t follow Kubernetes API conventions, and therefore wouldn’t be considered to be part of Kubernetes.
Inside container images: Kubernetes is not opinionated about the contents of container images – if it lives inside the container image, it lives outside Kubernetes. This includes, for example, language-specific application frameworks.
On top of Kubernetes
Continuous integration and deployment: Kubernetes is unopinionated in the source-to-image space. It does not deploy source code and does not build your application. Continuous Integration (CI) and continuous deployment workflows are areas where different users and projects have their own requirements and preferences, so we aim to facilitate layering CI/CD workflows on Kubernetes but don’t dictate how they should work.
Application middleware: Kubernetes does not provide application middleware, such as message queues and SQL databases, as built-in infrastructure. It may, however, provide general-purpose mechanisms, such as service-broker integration, to make it easier to provision, discover, and access such components. Ideally, such components would just run on Kubernetes.
Logging and monitoring: Kubernetes does not provide logging aggregation, comprehensive application monitoring, nor telemetry analysis and alerting systems, though such mechanisms are essential to production clusters.
Data-processing platforms: Spark and Hadoop are well known examples, but there are many such systems.
Application-specific operators: Kubernetes supports workload management for common categories of applications, but not for specific applications.
Platform as a Service: Kubernetes provides a foundation for a multitude of focused, opinionated PaaSes, including DIY ones.
Functions as a Service: Similar to PaaS, but FaaS additionally encroaches into containers and language-specific application frameworks.
Workflow orchestration: “Workflow” is a very broad, diverse area, with solutions typically tailored to specific use cases (data-flow graphs, data-driven processing, deployment pipelines, event-driven automation, business-process execution, iPaaS) and specific input and event sources, and often requires arbitrary code to evaluate conditions, actions, and/or failure handling.
Configuration DSLs: Domain-specific languages do not facilitate layering higher-level APIs and tools, they usually have limited expressibility, testability, familiarity, and documentation, they promote complex configuration generation, they tend to compromise interoperability and composability, they complicate dependency management, and uses often subvert abstraction and encapsulation.
Kompose: Kompose is a project-supported adaptor tool that facilitates migration to Kubernetes from Docker Compose and enables simple use cases, but doesn’t follow Kubernetes conventions and is based on a manually maintained DSL.
ChatOps: Also adaptor tools, for the multitude of chat services.
Container runtime: Kubernetes does not provide its own container runtime, but provides an interface for plugging in the container runtime of your choice.
Image registry: Kubernetes pulls container images to the nodes.
Cluster state store: Etcd
Network: As with the container runtime, we support an interface (CNI) that facilitates pluggability.
File storage: Local filesystems and network-attached storage.
Node management: Kubernetes neither provides nor adopts any comprehensive machine configuration, maintenance, management, or self-healing systems, which typically are handled differently in different public/private clouds, for different operating systems, for mutable vs. immutable infrastructure, for shops already using tools outside of their Kubernetes clusters, etc.
Cloud provider: IaaS provisioning and management.
Cluster creation and management: The community has developed numerous tools, such as minikube, kubeadm, bootkube, kube-aws, kops, kargo, kubernetes-anywhere, and so on. As can be seen from the diversity of tools, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for cluster deployment and management (e.g., upgrades). There’s a spectrum of possible solutions, each with different tradeoffs. That said, common building blocks (e.g., secure Kubelet registration) and approaches (in particular, self-hosting) would reduce the amount of custom orchestration needed in such tools.
We would like to see the ecosystem build and/or integrate solutions to fill these needs.
Eventually, most Kubernetes development should fall in the ecosystem.
Options, Configurable defaults, Extensions, Plug-ins, Add-ons, Provider-specific functionality, Version skew, Feature discovery, and Dependency management.
Kubernetes is not just an open-source toolkit, but is typically consumed as a running, easy-to-run, or ready-to-run cluster or service. We would like most users and use cases to be able to use stock upstream releases. This means Kubernetes needs sufficient extensibility without rebuilding to handle such use cases.
While gaps in extensibility are the primary drivers of code forks and gaps in upstream cluster lifecycle management solutions are currently the primary drivers of the proliferation of Kubernetes distributions, the existence of optional features (e.g., alpha APIs, provider-specific APIs), configurability, pluggability, and extensibility make the concept inevitable.
However, to make it possible for users to deploy and manage their applications and for developers to build Kubernetes extensions on/for arbitrary Kubernetes clusters, they must be able to make assumptions about what a cluster or distribution of Kubernetes provides. Where functionality falls out of these base assumptions, there needs to be a way to discover what functionality is available and to express functionality requirements (dependencies) for usage.
Cluster components, including add-ons, should be registered via the component registration API and discovered via /componentstatuses.
Enabled built-in APIs, aggregated APIs, and registered third-party resources should be discoverable via the discovery and OpenAPI (swagger.json) endpoints. As mentioned above, cloud-provider support for LoadBalancer-type services should be determined by whether the LoadBalancer API is present.
Extensions and their options should be registered via FooClass resources, similar to StorageClass, but with parameter descriptions, types (e.g., integer vs string), constraints (e.g., range or regexp) for validation, and default values, with a reference to fooClassName from the extended API. These APIs should also configure/expose the presence of related features, such as dynamic volume provisioning (indicated by a non-empty storageclass.provisioner field), as well as identifying the responsible controller. We need to add such APIs for at least scheduler classes, ingress controller classes, flex volume classes, and compute resource classes (e.g., GPUs, other accelerators).
Assuming we transitioned existing network-attached volume sources to flex volumes, this approach would cover volume sources. In the future, the API should provide only general-purpose abstractions, even if, as with LoadBalancer services, the abstractions are not implemented in all environments (i.e., the API does not need to cater to the lowest common denominator).
NIY: We also need to develop mechanisms for registering and discovering the following:
Admission-control plugins and hooks (including for built-in APIs)
Authorization plugins and hooks
Initializers and finalizers
Node labels and cluster topology (topology classes?)
NIY: Activation/deactivation of both individual APIs and finer-grain features could be addressed by the following mechanisms:
An API should be added for semantically meaningful settings, such as the default length of time to wait before deleting pods on unresponsive nodes.
NIY: The problem of version-skewed operation, for features dependent on upgrades of multiple components (including replicas of the same component in HA clusters), should be addressed by:
Creating flag gates for all new such features,
Always disabling the features by default in the first minor release in which they appear,
Providing configuration patches to enable the features, and
Enabling them by default in the next minor release.
NIY: We additionally need a mechanism to warn about out of date nodes, and/or potentially prevent master upgrades (other than to patch releases) until/unless the nodes have been upgraded.
NIY: Field-level versioning would facilitate solutions to bulk activation of new and/or alpha API fields, prevention of clobbering of new fields by poorly written out-of-date clients, and evolution of non-alpha APIs without a proliferation of full-fledged API definitions.
The Kubernetes API server silently ignores unsupported resource fields and query parameters, but not unknown/unregistered APIs (note that unimplemented/inactive APIs should be disabled). This can facilitate the reuse of configuration across clusters of multiple releases, but more often leads to surprises. Kubectl supports optional validation using the Swagger/OpenAPI specification from the server. Such optional validation should be provided by the server (NIY). Additionally, shared resource manifests should specify the minimum required Kubernetes release, for user convenience, which could potentially be verified by kubectl and other clients.
Additionally, unsatisfiable Pod scheduling constraints and PersistentVolumeClaim criteria silently go unmet, which can useful as demand signals to automatic provisioners, but also makes the system more error prone. It should be possible to configure rejection of unsatisfiable requests, using FooClass-style APIs, as described above (NIY).
The Service Catalog mechanism (NIY) should make it possible to assert the existence of application-level services, such as S3-compatible cluster storage.
In order to properly secure a Kubernetes cluster and enable safe extension, a few fundamental concepts need to be defined and agreed on by the components of the system. It’s best to think of Kubernetes as a series of rings from a security perspective, with each layer granting the successive layer capabilities to act.
One or more data storage systems (etcd) for the nuclear APIs
The nuclear APIs
APIs for highly trusted resources (system policies)
Delegated trust APIs and controllers (users grant access to the API / controller to perform actions on their behalf) either at the cluster scope or smaller scopes
Untrusted / scoped APIs and controllers and user workloads that run at various scopes
When a lower layer depends on a higher layer, it collapses the security model and makes defending the system more complicated - an administrator may choose to do so to gain operational simplicity, but that must be a conscious choice. A simple example is etcd: any component that can write data to etcd is now root on the entire cluster, and any actor that can corrupt a highly trusted resource can almost certainly escalate. It is useful to divide the layers above into separate sets of machines for each layer of processes (etcd -> apiservers + controllers -> nuclear security extensions -> delegated extensions -> user workloads), even if some may be collapsed in practice.
If the layers described above define concentric circles, then it should also be possible for overlapping or independent circles to exist - for instance, administrators may choose an alternative secret storage solution that cluster workloads have access to yet the platform does not implicitly have access to. The point of intersection for these circles tends to be the machines that run the workloads, and nodes must have no more privileges than those required for proper function.
Finally, adding a new capability via extension at any layer should follow best practices for communicating the impact of that action.
When a capability is added to the system via extension, what purpose does it have?
Make the system more secure
Enable a new “production quality” API for consumption by everyone in the cluster
Automate a common task across a subset of the cluster
Run a hosted workload that offers apis to consumers (spark, a database, etcd)
These fall into three major groups:
Required for the cluster (and hence must run close to the core, and cause operational tradeoffs in the presence of failure)
Exposed to all cluster users (must be properly tenanted)
Exposed to a subset of cluster users (runs more like traditional “app” workloads)
If an administrator can easily be tricked into installing a new cluster level security rule during extension, then the layering is compromised and the system is vulnerable.
In addition to completing the technical mechanisms described and/or implied above, we need to apply the principles in this document to a set of more focused documents that answer specific practical questions. Here are some suggested documents and the questions they answer:
Kubernetes API Conventions For Extension API Developers
Audience: someone planning to build a Kubernetes-like API extension (TPR or Aggregated API, etc…)
What conventions should I follow? (metadata, status, etc)
What integrations do I get from following those conventions?
What can I omit and Does
Document that answers this question:
Kubernetes API Conventions For CLI and UI Developers
Audience: someone working on kubectl, dashboard, or another CLI or UI.
Required and Optional Behaviors for Kubernetes Distributions/Services
See also the certification issue
I just implemented a Hosted version of the Kubernetes API.
Which API groups, versions and Kinds do I have to expose?
Can I provide my own logging, auth, auditing integrations and so on?
Can I call it Kubernetes if it just has pods but no services?
I’m packaging up a curated Kubernetes distro and selling it.
Assumptions/conventions for application developers
I want to write portable config across on-prem and several clouds.
Kubernetes Security Models