diff --git a/docs/proposals/pleg.png b/docs/proposals/pleg.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f15c5d83dad
Binary files /dev/null and b/docs/proposals/pleg.png differ
diff --git a/docs/proposals/pod-lifecycle-event-generator.md b/docs/proposals/pod-lifecycle-event-generator.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..cec047de182
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/proposals/pod-lifecycle-event-generator.md
@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PLEASE NOTE: This document applies to the HEAD of the source tree
+
+If you are using a released version of Kubernetes, you should
+refer to the docs that go with that version.
+
+Documentation for other releases can be found at
+[releases.k8s.io](http://releases.k8s.io).
+
+--
+
+
+
+
+
+# Kubelet: Pod Lifecycle Event Generator (PLEG)
+
+In Kubernetes, Kubelet is a per-node daemon that manages the pods on the node,
+driving the pod states to match their pod specifications (specs). To achieve
+this, Kubelet needs to react to changes in both (1) pod specs and (2) the
+container states. For the former, Kubelet watches the pod specs changes from
+multiple sources; for the latter, Kubelet polls the container runtime
+periodically (e.g., 10s) for the latest states for all containers.
+
+Polling incurs non-negligible overhead as the number of pods/containers increases,
+and is exacerbated by Kubelet's parallelism -- one worker (goroutine) per pod, which
+queries the container runtime individually. Periodic, concurrent, large number
+of requests causes high CPU usage spikes (even when there is no spec/state
+change), poor performance, and reliability problems due to overwhelmed container
+runtime. Ultimately, it limits Kubelet's scalability.
+
+(Related issues reported by users: [#10451](https://issues.k8s.io/10451),
+[#12099](https://issues.k8s.io/12099), [#12082](https://issues.k8s.io/12082))
+
+## Goals and Requirements
+
+The goal of this proposal is to improve Kubelet's scalability and performance
+by lowering the pod management overhead.
+ - Reduce unnecessary work during inactivity (no spec/state changes)
+ - Lower the concurrent requests to the container runtime.
+
+The design should be generic so that it can support different container runtimes
+(e.g., Docker and rkt).
+
+## Overview
+
+This proposal aims to replace the periodic polling with a pod lifecycle event
+watcher.
+
+
+
+## Pod Lifecycle Event
+
+A pod lifecycle event interprets the underlying container state change at the
+pod-level abstraction, making it container-runtime-agnostic. The abstraction
+shields Kubelet from the runtime specifics.
+
+```go
+type PodLifeCycleEventType string
+
+const (
+ ContainerStarted PodLifeCycleEventType = "ContainerStarted"
+ ContainerStopped PodLifeCycleEventType = "ContainerStopped"
+ NetworkSetupCompleted PodLifeCycleEventType = "NetworkSetupCompleted"
+ NetworkFailed PodLifeCycleEventType = "NetworkFailed"
+)
+
+// PodLifecycleEvent is an event reflects the change of the pod state.
+type PodLifecycleEvent struct {
+ // The pod ID.
+ ID types.UID
+ // The type of the event.
+ Type PodLifeCycleEventType
+ // The accompanied data which varies based on the event type.
+ Data interface{}
+}
+```
+
+Using Docker as an example, starting of a POD infra container would be
+translated to a NetworkSetupCompleted`pod lifecycle event.
+
+
+## Detect Changes in Container States Via Relisting
+
+In order to generate pod lifecycle events, PLEG needs to detect changes in
+container states. We can achieve this by periodically relisting all containers
+(e.g., docker ps). Although this is similar to Kubelet's polling today, it will
+only be performed by a single thread (PLEG). This means that we still
+benefit from not having all pod workers hitting the container runtime
+concurrently. Moreover, only the relevant pod worker would be woken up
+to perform a sync.
+
+The upside of relying on relisting is that it is container runtime-agnostic,
+and requires no external dependency.
+
+### Relist period
+
+The shorter the relist period is, the sooner that Kubelet can detect the
+change. Shorter relist period also implies higher cpu usage. Moreover, the
+relist latency depends on the underlying container runtime, and usually
+increases as the number of containers/pods grows. We should set a default
+relist period based on measurements. Regardless of what period we set, it will
+likely be significantly shorter than the current pod sync period (10s), i.e.,
+Kubelet will detect container changes sooner.
+
+
+## Impact on the Pod Worker Control Flow
+
+Kubelet is responsible for dispatching an event to the appropriate pod
+worker based on the pod ID. Only one pod worker would be woken up for
+each event.
+
+Today, the pod syncing routine in Kubelet is idempotent as it always
+examines the pod state and the spec, and tries to drive to state to
+match the spec by performing a series of operations. It should be
+noted that this proposal does not intend to change this property --
+the sync pod routine would still perform all necessary checks,
+regardless of the event type. This trades some efficiency for
+reliability and eliminate the need to build a state machine that is
+compatible with different runtimes.
+
+## Leverage Upstream Container Events
+
+Instead of relying on relisting, PLEG can leverage other components which
+provide container events, and translate these events into pod lifecycle
+events. This will further improve Kubelet's responsiveness and reduce the
+resource usage caused by frequent relisting.
+
+The upstream container events can come from:
+
+(1). *Event stream provided by each container runtime*
+
+Docker's API exposes an [event
+stream](https://docs.docker.com/reference/api/docker_remote_api_v1.17/#monitor-docker-s-events).
+Nonetheless, rkt does not support this yet, but they will eventually support it
+(see [coreos/rkt#1193](https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/1193)).
+
+(2). *cgroups event stream by cAdvisor*
+
+cAdvisor is integrated in Kubelet to provide container stats. It watches cgroups
+containers using inotify and exposes an event stream. Even though it does not
+support rkt yet, it should be straightforward to add such a support.
+
+Option (1) may provide richer sets of events, but option (2) has the advantage
+to be more universal across runtimes, as long as the container runtime uses
+cgroups. Regardless of what one chooses to implement now, the container event
+stream should be easily swappable with a clearly defined interface.
+
+Note that we cannot solely rely on the upstream container events due to the
+possibility of missing events. PLEG should relist infrequently to ensure no
+events are missed.
+
+## Generate Expected Events
+
+*This is optional for PLEGs which performs only relisting, but required for
+PLEGs that watch upstream events.*
+
+A pod worker's actions could lead to pod lifecycle events (e.g.,
+create/kill a container), which the worker would not observe until
+later. The pod worker should ignore such events to avoid unnecessary
+work.
+
+For example, assume a pod has two containers, A and B. The worker
+
+ - Creates container A
+ - Receives an event `(ContainerStopped, B)`
+ - Receives an event `(ContainerStarted, A)`
+
+
+The worker should ignore the `(ContainerStarted, A)` event since it is
+expected. Arguably, the worker could process `(ContainerStopped, B)`
+as soon as it receives the event, before observing the creation of
+A. However, it is desirable to wait until the expected event
+`(ContainerStarted, A)` is observed to keep a consistent per-pod view
+at the worker. Therefore, the control flow of a single pod worker
+should adhere to the following rules:
+
+1. Pod worker should process the events sequentially.
+2. Pod worker should not start syncing until it observes the outcome of its own
+ actions in the last sync to maintain a consistent view.
+
+In other words, a pod worker should record the expected events, and
+only wake up to perform the next sync until all expectations are met.
+
+ - Creates container A, records an expected event `(ContainerStarted, A)`
+ - Receives `(ContainerStopped, B)`; stores the event and goes back to sleep.
+ - Receives `(ContainerStarted, A)`; clears the expectation. Proceeds to handle
+ `(ContainerStopped, B)`.
+
+We should set an expiration time for each expected events to prevent the worker
+from being stalled indefinitely by missing events.
+
+## TODOs for v1.2
+
+For v1.2, we will add a generic PLEG which relists periodically, and leave
+adopting container events for future work. We will also *not* implement the
+optimization that generate and filters out expected events to minimize
+redundant syncs.
+
+- Add a generic PLEG using relisting. Modify the container runtime interface
+ to provide all necessary information to detect container state changes
+ in `GetPods()` (#13571).
+
+- Benchmark docker to adjust relising frequency.
+
+- Fix/adapt features that rely on frequent, periodic pod syncing.
+ * Liveness/Readiness probing: Create a separate probing manager using
+ explicitly container probing period [#10878](https://issues.k8s.io/10878).
+ * Instruct pod workers to set up a wake-up call if syncing failed, so that
+ it can retry.
+
+
+
+
+[]()
+