Apply suggestions from tallclair

Co-authored-by: Tim Allclair <[email protected]>

Author: tabbysable

content/en/blog/_posts/2021-04-06-PodSecurityPolicy-Past-Present-and-Future.md

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ First, one or more PodSecurityPolicy resources are created in a cluster to defin
 
 One more important thing to know about PodSecurityPolicy: it’s not the same as [PodSecurityContext](/docs/reference/kubernetes-api/workload-resources/pod-v1/#security-context).
 
-A part of the Pod specification, PodSecurityContext is the collection of fields that specify many of the security-relevant settings for a Pod. The security context dictates to the kubelet and container runtime how the Pod should actually be run. In contrast, the PodSecurityPolicy only constrains (or defaults) the values that may be set on the security context.
+A part of the Pod specification, PodSecurityContext (and its per-container counterpart `SecurityContext`) is the collection of fields that specify many of the security-relevant settings for a Pod. The security context dictates to the kubelet and container runtime how the Pod should actually be run. In contrast, the PodSecurityPolicy only constrains (or defaults) the values that may be set on the security context.
 
 The deprecation of PSP does not affect PodSecurityContext in any way.
 
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ If you’re making extensive use of the flexibility of PSP with numerous PSPs an
 
 If your use of PSP is relatively simple, with a few policies and straightforward binding to service accounts in each namespace, you will likely find PSP Replacement Policy to be a good match for your needs. Evaluate your PSPs compared to the Kubernetes [Pod Security Standards](/docs/concepts/security/pod-security-standards/) to get a feel for where you’ll be able to use the Restricted, Baseline, and Privileged policies. Please follow along with or contribute to the KEP and subsequent development, and try out the Alpha release of PSP Replacement Policy when it becomes available.
 
-If you’re just beginning your PSP journey, you will save time and effort by keeping it simple. You can approximate the functionality of PSP Replacement Policy today by using the Pod Security Standards’ PSPs. If you set the cluster default by binding a Baseline or Restricted policy to the system:authenticated group, and then make a more-permissive policy available as needed in certain Namespaces [using ServiceAccount bindings](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#run-another-pod), you will avoid many of the PSP pitfalls and have an easy migration to PSP Replacement Policy. If your needs are much more complex than this, your effort is probably better spent adopting one of the more fully-featured external admission controllers mentioned above.
+If you’re just beginning your PSP journey, you will save time and effort by keeping it simple. You can approximate the functionality of PSP Replacement Policy today by using the Pod Security Standards’ PSPs. If you set the cluster default by binding a Baseline or Restricted policy to the `system:serviceaccounts` group, and then make a more-permissive policy available as needed in certain Namespaces [using ServiceAccount bindings](/docs/concepts/policy/pod-security-policy/#run-another-pod), you will avoid many of the PSP pitfalls and have an easy migration to PSP Replacement Policy. If your needs are much more complex than this, your effort is probably better spent adopting one of the more fully-featured external admission controllers mentioned above.
 
 We’re dedicated to making Kubernetes the best container orchestration tool we can, and sometimes that means we need to remove longstanding features to make space for better things to come. When that happens, the Kubernetes deprecation policy ensures you have plenty of time to plan your next move. In the case of PodSecurityPolicy, several options are available to suit a range of needs and use cases. Start planning ahead now for PSP’s eventual removal, and please consider contributing to its replacement! Happy securing!