open-feature / open-feature/protocol
Explore gRPC definitions for OFREP
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 56
- Forks
- 7
- Avg merge
- 1h 54m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
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
.protodefinitions 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
- #39: OFREP 1.0 roadmap
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the current REST/OpenAPI OFREP specification and related issue #39, then investigate the gRPC requirements described in this issue. Done means documenting whether official .proto definitions are needed, what scope they would have, and how the decision relates to demand and the 1.0 timeline.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- grpc, openapi
- Domain
- api
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100