Improve wording around Kata containers and OCI runtime spec

[adityasamant25]

Fixes #40114

From the Kubernetes documentation standpoint, a minor change in the wording should help clear the ambiguity specified in issue #40114. Instead of stating that Kata Containers is an OCI "compliant" runtime, I'm proposing a change to state that Kata containers "support" the OCI Runtime Specification (from v3.0.2 and above).

[netlify]

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5b06481
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/65e7e9015621250008551b8a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-44594--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[sftim]

PR titles become commit messages

/retitle Improve wording around Kata containers and OCI runtime spec

[sftim]

/sig node

[dipesh-rawat]

I feel this appears sufficient to eliminate ambiguity regarding OCI compliance as raised in the issue #40114.

@kubernetes/sig-node-pr-reviews, please review the current proposal and provide any improvements.

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dipesh-rawat

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:

• content/en/OWNERS [dipesh-rawat]

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

[adityasamant25]

@dipesh-rawat Although approved, absence of LGTM label is blocking the merge of the PR. Can you add the LGTM as well?

[matthyx]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: 99b16cde38182c5bc9189639b95bd84b750a7055