Clarifying how conflicting matches should be resolved in non-HTTP Routes

[robscott]

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a follow up from #620. It takes the conflict resolution guidance we added to HTTPRoute and applies it to the other route types.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Clarifies how conflicting matches should be resolved in non-HTTP routes

/cc @hbagdi @youngnick

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 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:

• OWNERS [robscott]

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

[youngnick]

I think changing "should match a maximum of one route rule" to "MUST match a maximum of one route rule" is vital. But apart from that, this looks great.

[bowei]

Do we need to comment on how to compare wildcard strings?

[robscott]

Good catch. I think "longest matching" would still be what we want even if wildcards were involved. We were missing guidance for what should be done if "*.example.com" and "b.example.com" both match - I added a new line item below this to clarify that precedence should be given to the longest precise match in the event of a tie.

[bowei]

Nits aside

LGTM

[robscott]

Thanks for the great feedback on this @bowei, @hbagdi, and @youngnick! I think I've resolved everything, PTAL.

[bowei]

/lgtm