Description of problem:

Wrong wording on supported backup storage providers

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

4.13

How reproducible:

It's documentation

Steps to Reproduce: 

At https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.13/backup_and_restore/application_backup_and_restore/installing/about-installing-oadp.html#oadp-s3-compatible-backup-storage-providers_about-installing-oadp we say that S3-compatible APIs are supported. In the same section you mention Multicloud Object Gateway (MCG) with NooBaa as supported and in the same section you say NooBaa is unsupported. This doesn't make any sense.

The same with Ceph RadosGW. If Ceph is a software from Red Hat provided by ODF, why is listed as unsupported? Specifically you mention the upstream luminous version: Ceph RADOS v12.2.7. BTW, RADOS is the internal protocol, the actual component providing an S3 API to the Ceph cluster is Ceph RadosGW.

If you want to say that we are obviously not testing OADP with every single S3-compatible API, we can rephrase to something similar to this (from Quay documentation: https://access.redhat.com/articles/4067991):

"Quay relies on an S3 object storage API to store uploaded content. While S3 is not a standardized protocol, many third party vendors have implemented it to a degree where Quay technically works. These configurations have not been tested and are therefore not directly supported. However, a best effort support policy is in place, that will not render a Quay deployment completely unsupported when 3rd party S3 storage used. Support is still provided up to the layer in Quay where it integrates with S3 object storage. Red Hat support will troubleshoot any issue and if there is reason to believe that the root cause is related to a 3rd party storage system, may ask the customer to reproduce the issue with a supported S3 object storage or contact their S3 storage vendor for support directly."

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info: