From 95c6f590d352cbbc6228accbe3217856e597195c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 10:58:49 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] kep-1669: update alpha milestones for v1.22

Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
---
 keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1669.yaml     |   3 +
 .../README.md                                 | 281 +++++++++++++++++-
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  23 +-
 3 files changed, 298 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1669.yaml

diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1669.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1669.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..72ee6b4058b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1669.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 1669
+alpha:
+  approver: "@wojtek-t"
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/README.md b/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/README.md
index 4a6b4dd4c25..ea2eadc8563 100644
--- a/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/README.md
@@ -20,6 +20,13 @@
     - [Alpha](#alpha)
   - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
   - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
 - [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
 - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
 - [Alternatives](#alternatives)
@@ -28,10 +35,10 @@
 ## Release Signoff Checklist
 
 - [X] Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
-- [ ] KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `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
+- [X] KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [X] Design details are appropriately documented
+- [X] Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
+- [X] 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 [kubernetes.io]
 - [ ] Supporting documentation e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
@@ -117,7 +124,6 @@ kube-proxy unit tests:
 #### E2E Tests
 
 E2E tests will be added to validate that no traffic is dropped during a rolling update for a Service with ExternalTrafficPolicy=Local.
-This test may be marked "Flaky" as the behavior is largely also dependant on the cloud provider's loadbalancer.
 
 All existing E2E tests for Services should continue to pass.
 
@@ -125,8 +131,9 @@ All existing E2E tests for Services should continue to pass.
 
 #### Alpha
 
-* kube-proxy internally tracks the terminating condition of an endpoint.
-* feature is only enabled if the feature gate `EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition` is on.
+* kube-proxy internally tracks the `terminating` and `serving` condition from EndpointSlice
+* kube-proxy falls back to terminating endpoints if and only if they are the only available endpoints.
+* feature is only enabled if the feature gate `ProxyTerminatingEndpoints` is on.
 * unit tests in kube-proxy.
 
 ### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
@@ -141,6 +148,266 @@ This would either happen if a version of the control plane was not aware of the
 
 There's not much risk involved as the worse case scenario is falling back to existing behavior.
 
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+- [X] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: ProxyTerminatingEndpoints
+  - Components depending on the feature gate: kube-proxy
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+Yes, when externalTrafficPolicy=Local and there are only terminating endpoints,
+kube-proxy will route traffic to those endpoints. Before this change, kube-proxy
+dropped this traffic instead.
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Yes.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+kube-proxy will no longer drop traffic if only terminating endpoints are available.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+Yes, there will be unit tests in kube-proxy with the feature gate enabled and disabled.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can a rollout fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the above SLIs?
+
+<!--
+At a high level, this usually will be in the form of "high percentile of SLI
+per day <= X". It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99,9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  - estimated throughput
+  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type
+  - Supported number of objects per cluster
+  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+
+TBD for beta.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type(s):
+  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
 ## Implementation History
 
 - [x] 2020-04-23: KEP accepted as implementable for v1.19
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/kep.yaml
index 6868fc9da53..2e586daa551 100644
--- a/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-network/1669-graceful-termination-local-external-traffic-policy/kep.yaml
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ reviewers:
   - "@smarterclayton"
 approvers:
   - "@thockin"
+prr-approvers:
+  - "@johnbelamaric"
 creation-date: 2020-04-07
 last-updated: 2020-04-07
 status: implementable
@@ -18,5 +20,22 @@ see-also:
   - "/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/README.md"
   - https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/85643
 
-latest-milestone: "0.0"
-stage: "alpha"
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.22"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.22"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+  - name: ProxyTerminatingEndpoints
+    components:
+      - kube-proxy
+disable-supported: true

From d248614d4d69ffa6f59e26251f7c9e10a1d08f70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 10:59:08 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] kep-1672: update beta milestones for v1.22

Signed-off-by: Andrew Sy Kim <kim.andrewsy@gmail.com>
---
 keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1672.yaml     |   3 +
 .../README.md                                 | 158 +++++++++++++++++-
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  22 ++-
 3 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1672.yaml

diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1672.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1672.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c6ded615224
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-network/1672.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 1672
+alpha:
+  approver: "@wojtek-t"
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/README.md b/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/README.md
index a879d95f04c..913eff7cd29 100644
--- a/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/README.md
+++ b/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/README.md
@@ -15,8 +15,16 @@
   - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
   - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
     - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
   - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
   - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
 - [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
 - [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
 <!-- /toc -->
@@ -91,7 +99,7 @@ and possibly more depending on how many times readiness changes during terminati
 
 ## Design Details
 
-To track whether an endpoint is terminating, a `terminating` field would be added as part of
+To track whether an endpoint is terminating, a `terminating` and `serving` field would be added as part of
 the `EndpointCondition` type in the EndpointSlice API.
 
 ```go
@@ -100,14 +108,25 @@ type EndpointConditions struct {
     // ready indicates that this endpoint is prepared to receive traffic,
     // according to whatever system is managing the endpoint. A nil value
     // indicates an unknown state. In most cases consumers should interpret this
-    // unknown state as ready.
+    // unknown state as ready. For compatibility reasons, ready should never be
+    // "true" for terminating endpoints.
     // +optional
     Ready *bool `json:"ready,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,name=ready"`
 
-    // terminating indicates if this endpoint is terminating. Consumers should assume a
-    // nil value indicates the endpoint  is not terminating.
+    // serving is identical to ready except that it is set regardless of the
+    // terminating state of endpoints. This condition should be set to true for
+    // a ready endpoint that is terminating. If nil, consumers should defer to
+    // the ready condition. This field can be enabled with the
+    // EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition feature gate.
     // +optional
-    Terminating *bool `json:"terminating,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,name=terminating"`
+    Serving *bool `json:"serving,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,name=serving"`
+
+    // terminating indicates that this endpoint is terminating. A nil value
+    // indicates an unknown state. Consumers should interpret this unknown state
+    // to mean that the endpoint is not terminating. This field can be enabled
+    // with the EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition feature gate.
+    // +optional
+    Terminating *bool `json:"terminating,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,name=terminating"`
 }
 ```
 
@@ -116,7 +135,8 @@ NOTE: A nil value for `Terminating` indicates that the endpoint is not terminati
 Updates to endpointslice controller:
 * include pods with a deletion timestamp in endpointslice
 * any pod with a deletion timestamp will have condition.terminating = true
-* allow endpoint ready condition to change during termination
+* any terminating pod must have condition.ready = false.
+* the new `serving` condition is set based on pod readiness regardless of terminating state.
 
 ### Test Plan
 
@@ -134,10 +154,16 @@ E2E tests:
 
 #### Alpha
 
-* EndpointSlice API includes `Terminating` condition.
-* `Terminating` condition can only be set if feature gate `EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition` is enabled.
+* EndpointSlice API includes `Terminating` and `Serving` condition.
+* `Terminating` and `Serving` condition can only be set if feature gate `EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition` is enabled.
 * Unit tests in endpointslice controller and API validation/strategy.
 
+#### Beta
+
+* Integration API tests exercising the `terminating` and `serving` conditions.
+* `EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition` is enabled by default.
+* Consensus on scalability implications resulting from additional EndpointSlice writes with approval from sig-scalability.
+
 ### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
 
 Since this is an addition to the EndpointSlice API, the upgrade/downgrade strategy will follow that
@@ -148,9 +174,125 @@ of the [EndpointSlice API work](/keps/sig-network/20190603-endpointslices/README
 Since this is an addition to the EndpointSlice API, the version skew strategy will follow that
 of the [EndpointSlice API work](/keps/sig-network/20190603-endpointslices/README.md).
 
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+- [X] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition
+  - Components depending on the feature gate: kube-apiserver and kube-controller-manager
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+Yes, terminating endpoints are now included as part of EndpointSlice API. The `ready` condition of an endpoint will always be `false` to ensure consumers do not send traffic to terminating endpoints unless the new conditions `serving` and `terminating` are checked.
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+Yes. On rollback, terminating endpoints will no longer be included in EndpointSlice and the `terminating` and `serving` conditions will not be set.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+EndpointSlice will continue to have the `terminating` and `serving` condition set and terminating endpoints will be added to the endpointslice in it's next sync.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+Yes, there will be strategy API unit tests validating if the new API field is allowed based on the feature gate.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+###### How can a rollout fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+If there are consumers of EndpointSlice that do not check the `ready` condition, then they may unexpectedly start sending traffic to terminating endpoints.
+It is assumed that almost all consumers of EndpointSlice check the `ready` condition prior to allowing traffic to a pod.
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+Application-level traffic indicating packet-loss or error rates.
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+Not yet, but manual upgrade and rollback testing will be done prior to graduating the feature to Beta.
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+No.
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+The condition will always be set for terminating pods but consumers may choose to ignore them. It is up to consumers of the API to provide metrics
+on how the new conditions are being used.
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+Metrics will be added for total endpoints with the `serving` and `terminating` condition set.
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the above SLIs?
+
+N/A
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+N/A
+
+### Dependencies
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+N/A
+
+### Scalability
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+Yes, there will be more writes to EndpointSlice when:
+* a pod starts termination
+* a pod's readiness changes during termination
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+No.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+Yes, it will increase the size of EndpointSlice by adding two boolean fields for each endpoint.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+The networking programming latency SLO might be impacted due to additional writes to EndpointSlice.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+More writes to EndpointSlice could result in more resource usage from etcd disk IO and network bandwidth for all watchers.
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+EndpointSlice conditions will get stale.
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+* Consumers of EndpointSlice that do not not check the `ready` condition may unexpectedly use terminating endpoints.
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+* Disable the feature gate
+* Check if consumers of EndpointSlice are using the serving or termianting condition
+* Check etcd disk usage
+
 ## Implementation History
 
 - [x] 2020-04-23: KEP accepted as implementable for v1.19
+- [x] 2020-07-01: initial PR with alpha imlementation merged for v1.20
+- [x] 2020-05-12: KEP accepted as implementable for v1.22
 
 ## Drawbacks
 
diff --git a/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/kep.yaml
index 68632764f0f..71ff59ca18c 100644
--- a/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/kep.yaml
+++ b/keps/sig-network/1672-tracking-terminating-endpoints/kep.yaml
@@ -19,5 +19,23 @@ see-also:
   - /kep/sig-network/20190603-EndpointSlice-API.md
 replaces: []
 
-latest-milestone: "0.0"
-stage: "alpha"
+# The target maturity stage in the current dev cycle for this KEP.
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.22"
+
+# The milestone at which this feature was, or is targeted to be, at each stage.
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.20"
+
+# The following PRR answers are required at alpha release
+# List the feature gate name and the components for which it must be enabled
+feature-gates:
+  - name: EndpointSliceTerminatingCondition
+    components:
+      - kube-apiserver
+      - kube-controller-manager
+disable-supported: true