[META - Phases]: Discontinue Kube RBAC Proxy in Default Kubebuilder Scaffolding

[camilamacedo86]

What do you want to happen?

Address the phases and changes discussed in the proposal: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/kubebuilder/blob/master/designs/discontinue_usage_of_kube_rbac_proxy.md

• - Phase 0: Remove the RBAC Proxy: PR: ⚠️ Discontinue Kube RBAC Proxy in Default Kubebuilder Scaffolding #3899
• - Phase 1: Transition to NetworkPolicies: PR: WIP:✨ Phase 1: Add Network Policy #3853
• - Phase 2: Add Cert-Manager as Optional option to be used with metrics (help wanted) PS.: See that we should address the request made in: Improve scaffolding of ServiceMonitor #3657 within this one.
• - Phase 3: Add Controller-Runtime feature. Details can be found in: https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CAR30FCJZ/p1716290359950339?thread_ts=1716289540.582639&cid=CAR30FCJZ (Blocked by: Enhancement of Authentication and Authorization Filters to Allow Custom Configurations and Stability Improvements controller-runtime#2781)
• - Phase 4: When kube-rbac-proxy be accepted under the umbrella (Blocked by: Sig-Auth Pre-Acceptance 2nd Review brancz/kube-rbac-proxy#238 and the project be part of the umbrella. When it happens we can reach out its maintainers and see if we can support them out to create the external plugin)

Extra Labels

No response

[fgiloux]

Hi Camilla. Nice to see progress on this. If I am understanding things right you are considering two different ways of doing RBAC:

• the new controller-runtime feature Improve scaffolding of ServiceMonitor #3657, which has merged
• kube-rbac proxy

You also have two orthogonal subjects:

• TLS certificates for the metrics endpoint, where you propose to optionally scaffold resources for cert-manager
• scaffolding an SA, and referencing it in the ServiceMonitors, that can be leveraged by Prometheus for scrapping the metrics

This sounds good to me.

[fgiloux]

For phase 3: Maybe you mean issue 2781 as blocker?

[camilamacedo86]

Hi @fgiloux,

For phase 3: Maybe you mean kubernetes-sigs/controller-runtime#2781 as blocker?

Yes, it is a blocker for us since it is not following the good practices and we cannot properly pass the certs via cert-manager within as it is now. However, asap they be able to enhance the feature in controller-runtime we can move forward within.

[fgiloux]

I meant controller-runtime #2781 is now blocking phase 3 instead of #2407, as it is its follow-up and #2407 has been merged.