Substitute SOA for Kubernetes et al and it reads perfectly well :)
To me, SOA is more about the implementation-- especially the old WSDL-driven part.
But Kubernetes is more about infrastructure. The applications are written in different styles and different languages. K8S is more like a platform than anything else, to me.
But, net net, I put SOA in the same general bucket as ITIL and other associated practices of the time. They meant well but for most purposes they involved too much process and were ultimately too tied to big vendors trying to sell stuff.
"REST" microservices also do that, but they aren't bound to quasi-proprietary protocols and tooling.
By "REST" I assume you're referring to non-SOA distributed systems which might happen to use REST or RPC-over-HTTP interfaces, and not the architecture style.
Assuming that, "REST" handles all those features by integrating services that support coordinated transaction rollback/compensation over multiple heterogenous service calls.
> How is SOAP, XML, WS-*, AMQP proprietary?
If you read what I said you'll notice that I explicitly said "quasi-proprietary protocols and tooling".
That was one of the tragedies of SOA. The S was meant to be service as in windows service but it was co-opted to be service as in web service.
Had it been called Daemon Oriented Architecture things may have turned out differently.
The same thing is playing out now with micro services.
That assertion makes no sense as SOA is a software architecture approach and the communication between services has no impact on the system's architecture.