Add new BackendTLSPolicy configuration options to documentation

[08volt]

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:
Updated documentation page regarding BackendTLSPolicy with the following fields:

• Gateway backendTLS field
• subjectAltNames field
• options field

The documentation includes descriptions of each new field along with their purpose, usage constraints and reference links.

Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[k8s-ci-robot]

Welcome @08volt!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @08volt. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[robscott]

Thanks @08volt! This mostly LGTM. Added some suggestions for version indicators, not quite sure the formatting will be quite right, but should be close.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 08volt, robscott

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• site-src/OWNERS [robscott]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[robscott]

/ok-to-test

[kflynn]

Looks good from here too, with @robscott's changes. 🙂 Thanks!

[k8s-triage-robot]

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

• After 90d of inactivity, lifecycle/stale is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/stale was applied, lifecycle/rotten is applied
• After 30d of inactivity since lifecycle/rotten was applied, the PR is closed

You can:

• Mark this PR as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale
• Close this PR with /close
• Offer to help out with Issue Triage

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

[shaneutt]

cc @candita

Could you take a look here please and let us know your thoughts?

[candita]

@08volt @shaneutt I have a few suggestions here.

[robscott]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[robscott]

@08volt I know it's been a while since you created this PR, not sure if you still have time to spend on this. If not, one of us could open a new PR based on your initial commit to help get this across the line, just let us know what you prefer.

[08volt]

Enrico Shane Utt I have a few suggestions here.

Thanks for the very insightful suggestions, I corrected the documentation.

[08volt]

Enrico I know it's been a while since you created this PR, not sure if you still have time to spend on this. If not, one of us could open a new PR based on your initial commit to help get this across the line, just let us know what you prefer.

No worries, I addressed the comments, let me know if there is anything else left to do. Thank you

[shaneutt]

@candita as a person leading the BackendTLSPolicy push to standard, I would like to get your final review/approval and then I'm happy to review and provide the final LGTM.

[youngnick]

Note that this information is changing in #3960, so this should be updated with that design, and this PR should probably merge after that one does.

[candita]

@08volt @shaneutt

Some of this belongs under Gateway and not BackendTLSPolicy. https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/gateway-api/pull/3563/files#r2219923354

I did not add the new fields to API, so I think it's best for @LiorLieberman to validate these changes to the docs. To me, this feels like it came out of nowhere, as there isn't even an issue linked to #3180.

Most frighteningly, there are NO conformance tests for these additions. I don't think they should be added to an API object on its way to Standard without them. Should I raise an issue?