Docs feedback: Suggestions for Alternatives for Object Storage in Reference Architectures

Link the doc and describe what is wrong with it.

All of our Reference Architectures that exceed 1000 users have a line item for Object Storage that is listed as "Not Applicable" and references a footnote that advises, "Should be run on reputable third-party object storage (storage PaaS) for cloud implementations. Google Cloud Storage and AWS S3 are known to work."

This has led several document consumers to assume that Object Storage is not supported in our larger reference architectures. I suggest we consider alternatives to the "Not Applicable". Perhaps something like "Supported subject to Footnote" or maybe simply "Supported".

Perhaps we could simply make this language a link to our Object Storage documentation.