Clarity on GRPCRoute: Extended vs. Core support

[aharbis]

What would you like to be added:

I'd like to see clarifying details regarding if the GRPCRoute resource as a whole is Core vs. Extended, and if it's the latter, how that impacts individual fields having Core support.

Perhaps this is not unique to GRPCRoute, but it's a notable example. If there's a more central place (like the Conformance page) to explain this nuance, that works too.

Why this is needed:

It's not clear where GRPCRoute falls regarding conformance profiles. The API reference for GRPCRoute states (emphasis mine):

GRPCRoute falls under extended support within the Gateway API. Within the following specification, the word “MUST” indicates that an implementation supporting GRPCRoute must conform to the indicated requirement, but an implementation not supporting this route type need not follow the requirement unless explicitly indicated.

Yet, within the resource's reference individual fields (such as hostnames within GRPCRouteSpec) state Core:

Support: Core

So, it's unclear to me: is GRPCRoute under extended support, or core?

[xtineskim]

Hi @aharbis, thanks for suggesting this
I agree, we can make it more clear what the difference between core and extended in the docs. To clarify, the above is saying that all implementations don't have to provide a GRPCRoute, however if they do, then their GRPCRouteSpec must be present.