Implement of GEP-995

[howardjohn]

What type of PR is this?

/kind gep

What this PR does / why we need it:

Implements GEP-995

GEP: #2593 (merged)
Docs: #2946 (merged)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

Release note was in 2593

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: howardjohn
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign danwinship for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

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

[LiorLieberman]

Generally looks good to me,
One nit: the GEP mentions

"This format for the name field of route rules differs from the pattern adopted for the SectionName type, which was thought for specifying mainly DNS subdomain names (RFC 1123), due to its use in the gateway listeners originally"

So although it is just a string, using v1.SectionName is a bit confusing. Maybe a dedicated type or simply a string?

[guicassolato]

Generally looks good to me, One nit: the GEP mentions

"This format for the name field of route rules differs from the pattern adopted for the SectionName type, which was thought for specifying mainly DNS subdomain names (RFC 1123), due to its use in the gateway listeners originally"

So although it is just a string, using v1.SectionName is a bit confusing. Maybe a dedicated type or simply a string?

SectionName won't allow names such as my-rule123, my_rule, or myRule. https://go.dev/play/p/zRACGkGb_EG

Not sure what the best path is here, but I guess starting with SectionName is fine. Maybe it's the GEP that should change; then, if requested, another one opened to modify the definition of SectionName perhaps?

[robscott]

@guicassolato or @howardjohn I know this GEP is already essentially in scope for v1.2, but can one of you take a minute to leave a comment on #3103 so we make sure we're tracking it?