From 76571eb16d0bf1d4b851341d35e8eb5f5e9cc2b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: knight42 <anonymousknight96@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:46:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] KEP: make RESTClient not to follow redirects by default

Signed-off-by: knight42 <anonymousknight96@gmail.com>
---
 .../README.md                                 | 619 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../kep.yaml                                  |  21 +
 2 files changed, 640 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/README.md
 create mode 100644 keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/kep.yaml

diff --git a/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/README.md b/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f24564da695
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,619 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+- [ ] **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.
+- [ ] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all
+  fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You
+  can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the
+  enhancement and add the link.
+- [ ] **Make a copy of this template directory.**
+  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it
+  `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
+  leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
+- [ ] **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Title", "Authors", "Owning-sig",
+  "Status", and date-related fields.
+- [ ] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+- [ ] **Create a PR for this KEP.**
+  Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process.
+- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+
+Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP
+marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can
+denote sections that are under active debate as follows:
+
+```
+<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>>
+Stuff that is being argued.
+<<[/UNRESOLVED]>>
+```
+
+When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions
+focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR
+with suggested changes.
+
+One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle.
+You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If
+new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become
+"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs.
+
+The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source
+of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md).
+
+**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable`, or significant changes once
+it is marked `implementable`, must be approved by each of the KEP approvers.
+If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
+should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
+SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
+-->
+
+<!--
+FIXME:
+-->
+ KEP-1906: RESTClient not follow redirects by default
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+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
+  <code>&lt;!-- toc --&rt;&lt;!-- /toc --&rt;</code>
+tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+  - [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)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## 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 the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+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.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [ ] Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "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
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+Configure [RESTClient](https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/36233866f1c7c0ad3bdac1fc466cb5de3746cfa2/rest/client.go#L81) in client-go not to follow redirects by default to mitigate potential security risk such as [CVE-2020-8559](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/92914).
+
+This may be a breaking change for users that rely on following redirects.
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!--
+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.
+
+[experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports
+-->
+Several CVEs has been reported to be related with following HTTP redirects, for instance:
+
+- [CVE-2018-1002102](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/85867)
+- [CVE-2020-8559](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/92914)
+- ...(there may be other unrevealed CVEs)
+
+Generally speaking, the RESTClient should work without following any HTTP redirects and we would have an immediate mitigation of the above CVEs if the RESTClient do not follow redirects by default.
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+
+- Configure the RESTClient not to follow HTTP redirects by default to mitigate potential security risk.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+
+- TBD
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
+This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
+you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
+implementation. The "Design Details" section below is for the real
+nitty-gritty.
+-->
+
+### 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 who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+Generally the RESTClient does not need to follow any redirects, but there might be some cases where it is required to follow redirects.
+
+1. If it is required to follow redirects on the client side, i.e. kubectl, we could add a global flag to kubectl, say `--follow-redirect`, to mitigate breakage.
+2. If any kubernetes component needs to follow redirects, we could configure the RESTClient it used to follow redirects, but as far as I can tell, there is no such component now.
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+Add a new field `FollowRedirect` to [rest.Config](https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/36233866f1c7c0ad3bdac1fc466cb5de3746cfa2/rest/config.go#L53), and then configure the `http.Client` in [rest.RESTClientFor](https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/36233866f1c7c0ad3bdac1fc466cb5de3746cfa2/rest/config.go#L294) and [rest.UnversionedRESTClientFor](https://github.com/kubernetes/client-go/blob/36233866f1c7c0ad3bdac1fc466cb5de3746cfa2/rest/config.go#L355) according to its value.
+
+The `rest.Config` is updated as follows:
+
+```go
+type Config struct {
+  // other unchanged fields
+
+  // FollowRedirect makes the internal HTTP client follow redirects automatically
+  FollowRedirect bool
+}
+```
+
+In `rest.RESTClientFor` and `rest.UnversionedRESTClientFor` we would set the `CheckRedirect` field of the internal `http.Client` according to `config.FollowRedirect` as follows:
+
+```go
+// notFollowRedirect always returns http.ErrUseLastResponse
+func notFollowRedirect(req *http.Request, via []*http.Request) error {
+  return http.ErrUseLastResponse
+}
+
+func RESTClientFor(config *Config) (*RESTClient, error) {
+  // ... other unrelated code
+
+  httpClient := &http.Client{}
+
+  if !config.FollowRedirect {
+    httpClient.CheckRedirect = notFollowRedirect
+  }
+
+  // ... other unrelated code
+}
+
+
+func UnversionedRESTClientFor(config *Config) (*RESTClient, error) {
+  // ... other unrelated code
+
+  httpClient := &http.Client{}
+
+  if !config.FollowRedirect {
+    httpClient.CheckRedirect = notFollowRedirect
+  }
+
+  // ... other unrelated code
+}
+```
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *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][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+TBD
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, or as something else. The 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:
+- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
+- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
+
+Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
+definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
+or by redefining what graduation means.
+
+In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
+functionality is accessed.
+
+[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
+[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
+
+Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][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 two releases between beta and
+GA/stable, because 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 that 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].**
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+-->
+
+### 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 maintain 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.
+-->
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/20190731-production-readiness-review-process.md.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed for features in
+v1.19 or later, but is non-blocking at this time. That is, approval is not
+required in order to be in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+_This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release._
+
+* **How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?**
+  - [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+    - Feature gate name:
+    - Components depending on the feature gate:
+  - [ ] Other
+    - Describe the mechanism:
+    - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+      plane?
+    - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+      of a node? (Do not assume `Dynamic Kubelet Config` feature is enabled).
+
+* **Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?**
+  Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+  automations, so be extremely careful here.
+
+* **Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back
+  the enablement)?**
+  Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
+  Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
+  feature, can it break the existing applications?).
+
+* **What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?**
+
+* **Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?**
+  The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
+  gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
+  with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
+  conversion tests if API types are being modified.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+_This section must be completed when targeting beta graduation 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?
+
+* **What specific metrics should inform a rollback?**
+
+* **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.
+
+* **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.
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+_This section must be completed when targeting beta graduation 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.
+
+* **What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine 
+the health of the service?**
+  - [ ] 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
+
+* **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.).
+
+### Dependencies
+
+_This section must be completed when targeting beta graduation 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:
+
+
+### 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._
+
+* **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.)
+
+* **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)
+
+* **Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud 
+provider?**
+
+* **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]?**
+  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.
+
+* **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].
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+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.
+
+_This section must be completed when targeting beta graduation to a release._
+
+* **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?**
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+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
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+<!--
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
diff --git a/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..97b6d42446c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-api-machinery/1906-rest-client-not-follow-redirects/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+title: RESTClient not follow redirects by default
+kep-number: "1906"
+authors:
+  - "@knight42"
+owning-sig: sig-api-machinery
+participating-sigs: [sig-api-machinery]
+reviewers:
+  - TBD
+approvers:
+  - TBD
+prr-approvers:
+  - TBD
+creation-date: "2020-07-27"
+last-updated: v1.19
+status: provisional
+stage: alpha
+latest-milestone: v1.20
+milestone:
+  alpha: v1.20
+  beta: v1.21
+  stable: v1.22