Secret Store CSI Driver

[tam7t]

Enhancement Description

• One-line enhancement description (can be used as a release note): Integrates secrets stores with Kubernetes via a Container Storage Interface (CSI) volume.
• Kubernetes Enhancement Proposal: link
• Discussion Link:
  • https://groups.google.com/g/kubernetes-sig-auth/c/HeNMNFbwQig/m/o8IPe1hJAwAJ
  • Create retroactive KEP in sig-auth kubernetes-sigs/secrets-store-csi-driver#176
  • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q74nboAg0GSPcom3kLWCIoWg43Qg3mr306KNL58f2hg/edit#
• Primary contact (assignee): @tam7t, @aramase
• Responsible SIGs: sig-auth
• Enhancement target (which target equals to which milestone):
  • Alpha release target (0.0.10)
  • Beta release target (0.1.0)
  • Stable release target (1.0.0)

[aramase]

/sig auth

[k8s-ci-robot]

@tam7t: The label(s) sig/sig-auth cannot be applied, because the repository doesn't have them.

In response to this:

/sig sig-auth

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[aramase]

/cc @ritazh

[aramase]

/assign @aramase @tam7t

[kikisdeliveryservice]

As a note the milestones in the issue description should correspond to a Kubernetes Releases for ex 1.23, 1.24, etc...

[tam7t]

As a note the milestones in the issue description should correspond to a Kubernetes Releases for ex 1.23, 1.24, etc...

@kikisdeliveryservice The proposal does not actually modify Kubernetes and we are targeting this as an independently installed add-on and the alpha and beta milestones are included for retroactive documentation. I think that inclusion into K8s itself I think would require a separate proposal where K8s versions would indeed be targeted. Does that make sense? Thanks for the feedback!

[enj]

/close

This is implemented and v1 now.

[k8s-ci-robot]

@enj: Closing this issue.

In response to this:

/close

This is implemented and v1 now.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[pohly]

Can something which depends on a beta features in Kubernetes be considered GA?

I don't disagree with the decision to treat this as a third-party add-on and therefore close this enhancement issue. But users of the add-on need to be aware that they still depend on something that overall is beta.