TrafficTarget Source and Destination Namespacing

[dtomcej]

The issue

Currently, the namespace field in trafficTargets are not mandatory:

source destination

But there is no guidance for how to handle these fields if they are empty.

The question

• Should an empty namespace field be treated as the default namespace?
• Should an empty namespace field be treated as the namespace of the trafficTarget object?
• Should the namespace field be required to prevent this issue in its entirety?

[grampelberg]

I would like to remove the namespace field from the destination entirely and make it mandatory for the source personally. Would love to know how other folks feel there.

[dtomcej]

@grampelberg By removing the namespace field from the destination, you would like it to assume the destination is in the same namespace as the TT object itself?

I personally think that the TT should be in either the source or the destination namespace personally. Being that we have the destination as mandatory, I feel that I agree the destination should inherit the namespace from the TT itself.

[grampelberg]

From a permissions perspective, giving ownership of whether a source can talk to a destination or not seems weird. Like, I get to choose whether I can go into your house or not (and not you). It feels like the destination should be the one making decisions on who can enter the house or not.

[shashankram]

Good point @grampelberg on giving the destination ownership over deciding which sources are allowed to talk to it. However without a namespace, how would the service mesh implementation differentiate destinations in different namespaces with the same name?

[grampelberg]

@shashankram I'm not sure I understand the question? The destination is inside the namespace with the policy. It'll always be that way.