GEP-1619: Remove idleTimeout from SessionPersistence API#4771
Merged
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom Apr 22, 2026
Merged
GEP-1619: Remove idleTimeout from SessionPersistence API#4771k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes-sigs:mainfrom
Conversation
Remove the idleTimeout field from the SessionPersistence API. No Gateway API implementation has implemented this field and no implementation has requested it. HTTP cookies have no native idle timeout mechanism, and implementing it requires server-side session state tracking which is additional complexity beyond what the current cookie-based model requires. The field is documented in the GEP-1619 Alternatives section so it can be re-introduced in a future GEP if implementations demonstrate viable approaches and express interest.
k8s-ci-robot
added
release-note
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/M
|
Unknown CLA label state. Rechecking for CLA labels. Send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /check-cla |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
Member
|
/approve leaving lgtm for someone else, given we work for the same company :) |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
Member
|
/cc @mikemorris @snorwin |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
snorwin
reviewed
Apr 22, 2026
Comment on lines
+1090
to
+1097
| The `idleTimeout` field was originally included in the SessionPersistence API but | ||
| was removed because no Gateway API implementation has implemented it and no | ||
| implementation has requested it. HTTP cookies have no native idle timeout | ||
| mechanism — `Max-Age`/`Expires` are absolute, not idle-based. Implementing idle | ||
| timeout requires server-side session state tracking (e.g., HAProxy's `maxidle` or | ||
| NGINX's `sticky learn` with `timeout=`), which is additional complexity beyond | ||
| what the current cookie-based model requires. Some dataplanes have no mechanism | ||
| for idle timeout at all, making it unimplementable for those controllers. This |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to me to remove with this justification!
snorwin
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2026
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: gcs278, rikatz, snorwin The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Remove the idleTimeout field from the SessionPersistence API. No Gateway API implementation has implemented this field and no implementation has requested it. HTTP cookies have no native idle timeout mechanism, and implementing it requires server-side session state tracking which is additional complexity beyond what the current cookie-based model requires.
The field is documented in the GEP-1619 Alternatives section so it can be re-introduced in a future GEP if implementations demonstrate viable approaches and express interest.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #4770
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: