Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
3 contributors

Users who have contributed to this file

@CriaHu @tallclair @andrewsykim
290 lines (209 sloc) 13.2 KB
title authors owning-sig participating-sigs reviewers approvers editor creation-date last-updated status see-also replaces superseded-by
KEP Template


This is the title of the KEP. Keep it simple and descriptive. A good title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of any review.

The title should be lowercased and spaces/punctuation should be replaced with -.

To get started with this template:

  1. Pick a hosting SIG. Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG.
  2. Make a copy of this template. Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory (or KEP root directory, as appropriate) and name it, where YYYYMMDD is the date the KEP was first drafted.
  3. Fill out the "overview" sections. This includes the Summary and Motivation sections. These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the appropriate SIG.
  4. Create a PR. Assign it to folks in the SIG that are sponsoring this process.
  5. Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements, if the enhancement will be targeting changes to kubernetes/kubernetes When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please ensure to complete all fields in the template.
  6. Merge early. Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goal of the KEP merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just start with the "Overview" sections and fill out details incrementally in follow on PRs. View anything marked as a provisional as a working document and subject to change. Aim for single topic PRs to keep discussions focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR with suggested changes.

The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source of this file) is here.

The Metadata section above is intended to support the creation of tooling around the KEP process. This will be a YAML section that is fenced as a code block. See the KEP process for details on each of these items.

Table of Contents

A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP template.

Ensure the TOC is wrapped with <!-- toc --&rt;<!-- /toc --&rt; tags, and then generate with hack/

Release Signoff Checklist

ACTION REQUIRED: In order to merge code into a release, there must be an issue in kubernetes/enhancements referencing this KEP and targeting a release milestone before Enhancement Freeze of the targeted release.

For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core Kubernetes i.e., kubernetes/kubernetes, we require the following Release Signoff checklist to be completed.

Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These checklist items must be updated for the enhancement to be released.

  • kubernetes/enhancements issue in release milestone, which links to KEP (this should be a link to the KEP location in kubernetes/enhancements, not the initial KEP PR)
  • KEP approvers have set the KEP status to implementable
  • Design details are appropriately documented
  • Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
  • Graduation criteria is in place
  • "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
  • User-facing documentation has been created in kubernetes/website, for publication to
  • Supporting documentation e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes

Note: Any PRs to move a KEP to implementable or significant changes once it is marked implementable should be approved by each of the KEP approvers. If any of those approvers is no longer appropriate than changes to that list should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or SIG-arch for cross cutting KEPs).

Note: This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.


The Summary section is incredibly important for producing high quality user-focused documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be possible to collect this information before implementation begins in order to avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release notes and implementing the feature itself. KEP editors, SIG Docs, and SIG PM should help to ensure that the tone and content of the Summary section is useful for a wide audience.

A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.


This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals and non-goals of this KEP. Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The motivation section can optionally provide links to experience reports to demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community.


List the specific goals of the KEP. How will we know that this has succeeded?


What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion and make progress.


This is where we get down to the nitty gritty of what the proposal actually is.

User Stories [optional]

Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented. Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting bogged down.

Story 1

Story 2

Implementation Details/Notes/Constraints [optional]

What are the caveats to the implementation? What are some important details that didn't come across above. Go in to as much detail as necessary here. This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they releate.

Risks and Mitigations

What are the risks of this proposal and how do we mitigate. Think broadly. For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger kubernetes ecosystem.

How will security be reviewed and by whom? How will UX be reviewed and by whom?

Consider including folks that also work outside the SIG or subproject.

Design Details

Test Plan

Note: Section not required until targeted at a release.

Consider the following in developing a test plan for this enhancement:

  • Will there be e2e and integration tests, in addition to unit tests?
  • How will it be tested in isolation vs with other components?

No need to outline all of the test cases, just the general strategy. Anything that would count as tricky in the implementation and anything particularly challenging to test should be called out.

All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage expectations). Please adhere to the Kubernetes testing guidelines when drafting this test plan.

Graduation Criteria

Note: Section not required until targeted at a release.

Define graduation milestones.

These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. Initial KEP should keep this high-level with a focus on what signals will be looked at to determine graduation.

Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:

Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the API doc definition, or by redefining what graduation means.

In general, we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless how the functionality is accessed.


These are generalized examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned maturity levels.

Alpha -> Beta Graduation
  • Gather feedback from developers and surveys
  • Complete features A, B, C
  • Tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
Beta -> GA Graduation
  • N examples of real world usage
  • N installs
  • More rigorous forms of testing e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
  • Allowing time for feedback

Note: Generally we also wait at least 2 releases between beta and GA/stable, since there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports, in back-to-back releases.

Removing a deprecated flag
  • Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
  • Two versions passed since introducing the functionality which deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
  • Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
  • Deprecate the flag

For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include conformance tests.

Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy

If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this enhancement:

  • What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing cluster required to make on upgrade in order to keep previous behavior?
  • What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing cluster required to make on upgrade in order to make use of the enhancement?

Version Skew Strategy

If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.

Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this enhancement:

  • Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and in the kubelet? How does an n-2 kubelet without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
  • Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI, CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.

Implementation History

Major milestones in the life cycle of a KEP should be tracked in Implementation History. Major milestones might include

  • the Summary and Motivation sections being merged signaling SIG acceptance
  • the Proposal section being merged signaling agreement on a proposed design
  • the date implementation started
  • the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
  • the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
  • when the KEP was retired or superseded

Drawbacks [optional]

Why should this KEP not be implemented.

Alternatives [optional]

Similar to the Drawbacks section the Alternatives section is used to highlight and record other possible approaches to delivering the value proposed by a KEP.

Infrastructure Needed [optional]

Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a new subproject, repos requested, github details. Listing these here allows a SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.

You can’t perform that action at this time.