Update dl-iks-classic.md

[mgomezmx1]

The ingress resources example v1beta1 does not work anymore with the current version of iks deployed in ibm cloud, the changes maded to the yaml file include moving the annotation of kubernetes.io/ingress.class to the spec: section with ingressClassname indented as same level as metadata Also, apiVersion is changed to v1.

What must be peer reviewed?

Every change in the docs must be peer reviewed, unless you are JUST fixing a typo. When you add or change a sentence, you must get a peer review.
If your change is part of a larger overhaul or a bigger change in the docs, you can merge the content to staging without a peer review and inform the peer reviewer once you are done with the change and ready to have it peer reviewed. 
Important: Peer reviews do not replace technical reviews. Make sure to have your content reviewed by dev as well to ensure technical accuracy. 

What is included in a peer review? 

Content: 

• Does the topic/ section make sense and is worded in a way that a user can understand it? 
• Does the topic/ section seem to be consistent in style, look and feel with other sections in this topic/ other topics? 
• Do the provided steps work? Are steps/ explanations missing? (If possible, steps should be tested for new topics, and when new steps are added to existing topics)
• Are steps/ actions "hidden" in steps?
• Is the happy path, the why or the most common use case documented? 
• Are there any typos? Is the topic grammatically correct? 
• Is the topic/ section scannable or can you replace things with other elements, such as tables, lists, codeblocks, etc. ? (-> look for long paragraphs of text, long sentences, sentences with a lot of commas)
• Does the topic/ section meet IBM style guidelines? (e.g. look for allowed terms, present tense, no use of "there are", "may", or missing nouns after "this", referring to a noun as "it", etc. )
• Do headings match what you find in the topic/ section?
• Is important content "hiding" in H3s or in long paragraphs of text?
• Is the topic/ section written with a conversational style?
• Are service name conrefs used?
• Are codeblocks, pre, and screen tags used correctly? (e.g. YAML files in codeblocks, commands in pre, outputs in screen)

In Addition, if peer review is done in staging: 

• Does the format look ok? (e.g. indention of steps, numbering in lists, codeblocks, tables, colors, spacing)
• Do conrefs appear correctly?
• Does the TOC look ok?
• Do links work and point to the right topic? 
• Do you see any misplaced staging/ prod tags or conrefs?
• Is there enough space between topics/ steps? 
• Do images display correctly?

**Images: **

• Was the IBM Plex font used? 
• Are the right service icons used? Can text be replaced with a service icon?
• Is the flow comprehensive? 
• Is the image self-explanatory? (as much as it can, given that we show complex technical content)

What is NOT included in a peer review and must be completed by the writer? 

• Does the formatting looks ok in the docs framework (if peer review was done in a PR) 
• Check for broken links (if peer review was done in a PR) 
• Acrolinx testing and resolving of issues
• Making sure that images are accessible
• Making sure that images are ok to be translated (see guidelines)