Nadia Pinaeva
Nadia Pinaeva
> Going back to what I was saying above about "cluster default policy", what about: I find the fact that this struct introduces invisible priorities the most confusing part, because...
@danwinship @astoycos @Dyanngg I tried to sum up provided comments/ideas in a new section called "Another approach". Please take another look and let me know what you think
Let me try to address the main point here: using (B)ANP rules for tenancy. Current (B)ANP semantics is: `subject` selects pod to which all `ingress` and `egress` rules are applied....
I think we agreed some time ago that we want to simplify tenancy subject selection as much as possible, which ended up unifying tenancy labels with subject selector (because we...
I updated the NPEP, it seems like most suggestions fall into one of the mentioned categories for "Priorities" subsection. From what I understood form the meeting feedback, is that creating...
> @npinaeva If we go with @danwinship's > > `1. A single external tenant definition, arbitrary rules in ANPs/BANPs:` ^^[#178 (comment)](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/network-policy-api/pull/178#issuecomment-1930447439) > > Why do we need to "inject a...
Latest update based on the feedback from the SIG meeting on Feb 13. Pros ans cons for every priority option are updated, check `Final suggestion` to discuss fields of the...
>we should have figured out some way to give them the behavior they wanted in both tenanted and non-tenanted namespaces all at once... This can be done by assigning every...
/remove-lifecycle stale
/remove-lifecycle stale