Context
At KubeCon EU 2026, the OFREP discussion (recap) surfaced that some organizations require gRPC for their public APIs, making the current REST-only OFREP spec a barrier to adoption.
Problem
OFREP is currently defined as a REST/OpenAPI specification. Organizations with gRPC-first API policies cannot adopt it without wrapping it in a gRPC gateway or maintaining a separate integration.
Questions
- Should OFREP provide official
.proto definitions alongside the OpenAPI spec?
- Would this be a full gRPC service definition or a minimal translation of the existing REST API?
- What is the expected demand for this beyond the participants who raised it?
- How would this affect the 1.0 timeline, or is this a post-1.0 concern?
Related
Context
At KubeCon EU 2026, the OFREP discussion (recap) surfaced that some organizations require gRPC for their public APIs, making the current REST-only OFREP spec a barrier to adoption.
Problem
OFREP is currently defined as a REST/OpenAPI specification. Organizations with gRPC-first API policies cannot adopt it without wrapping it in a gRPC gateway or maintaining a separate integration.
Questions
.protodefinitions alongside the OpenAPI spec?Related