[RM Ch02] Make changes to 2.4 for consistency

[pgoyal01]

Fixes #2369
Align 2.4 with updates to RM Section 4.2 (PR #2366)

[pgoyal01]

Based on discussions on 2021-05-11, have made some edits and ensured that the correct Figure is in place.

Also suspended PR #2384 until this PR (#2405) and PR #2320 are completed. PR #2384 will be used to make any edits to 4.2 not covered by PR #2320 has been merged.

[walterkozlowski]

In my view, the idea is correct and correctly expressed. I think that profile extensions may be applicable to Basic as well, even for symmetry and future use. I do not see any harm. It is a bit hard to read this PR because of number of corrections. I suggest resolving all comments (if there are still any unresolved) and I am happy to merge. We can still add some minor corrections in seperate PRs. @joaoarodrigues, can you provide your view as well?

[karinesevilla]

Thanks for the modifications, good for me!

[joaoarodrigues]

In my view, the idea is correct and correctly expressed. I think that profile extensions may be applicable to Basic as well, even for symmetry and future use. I do not see any harm. It is a bit hard to read this PR because of number of corrections. I suggest resolving all comments (if there are still any unresolved) and I am happy to merge. We can still add some minor corrections in seperate PRs. @joaoarodrigues, can you provide your view as well?

@walterkozlowski There is a clear understanding why 'profiles extensions' - agreed that its applicable to 'Basic' too - is proposed (... and take 'flavor' away), though, I've some challenges why not using 'Infrastructure labels' (more 'tech' meaningful)