Update KEP-4322 to account for ClusterProfile CR being namespaced

[ostrain]

The "Push Model via Credentials in Secret" section defines a label to associate the secret with a ClusterProfile but only accounts for the ClusterProfile's name.

ClusterProfiles are namespaced objects so we need a way to specify the namespace as well (the secret is in a per-consumer namespace whereas the ClusterProfile is shared across consumers so is likely in a different namespace).

This PR adds a second label to specify the ClusterProfile namespace.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @ostrain!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/enhancements 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/enhancements has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @ostrain. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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-sigs/prow repository.

[ostrain]

/cc ryanzhang-oss

[k8s-ci-robot]

@ostrain: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: ryanzhang-oss.

Note that only kubernetes members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/cc ryanzhang-oss

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-sigs/prow repository.

[skitt]

FYI @ryanzhang-oss

Thanks @ostrain!

/ok-to-test
/approve

[ostrain]

An alternative thought I had is we could consider removing this stuff and making this section less prescriptive about what the secret should look like.

Instead, we could recommend using the new external credential provider mechanism (https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-multicluster/5339-clusterprofile-plugin-credentials/README.md), and then there could be one (or more) such plugins that reads creds from a secret, and the plugin could define what the secret should look like.

That KEP has a trivial sketch of such a secret-based plugin: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/blob/master/keps/sig-multicluster/5339-clusterprofile-plugin-credentials/README.md#secret-reader-plugin

[ostrain]

An alternative thought I had is we could consider removing this stuff and making this section less prescriptive about what the secret should look like.

This would also remove ambiguity of how the consumer should behave if the secret described by this section exists but the ClusterProfile also specifies credentialsProviders -- which would take precedence?

[lauralorenz]

This looks good to me, but I'll pop the merge if I hard lgtm and I want @ryanzhang-oss to look.

I see what you mean in #5457 (comment) however. If we are staying prescriptive, I think a follow on with an API example of Push Model via Credentials in Secret inline here or in an appendix would be nice. I feel its implied that CredentialProvider should take preference over the "Not Recommended" secret provider but is not explicit. Are we ok to leave that to implementations to decide? Seems ok, possibly even preferred, to me but depends what you are going for.

[ostrain]

/assign @ryanzhang-oss

I'd love your input on this when you get a chance, thanks!

[k8s-ci-robot]

@ostrain: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: ryanzhang-oss.

Note that only kubernetes members with read permissions, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time.
For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to this:

/assign @ryanzhang-oss

I'd love your input on this when you get a chance, thanks!

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-sigs/prow repository.

[ryanzhang-oss]

/lgtm

[ryanzhang-oss]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ostrain, ryanzhang-oss, skitt

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• keps/sig-multicluster/OWNERS [skitt]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment