blockchain_identification_and_alignment_topics

[PedroDiez]

What type of PR is this?

Add one of the following kinds:

• enhancement/feature
• documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR is intended to cover:

• Issue#19 [PROPOSAL DONE: Description and Exception. Parameter name pending]
• Commonalities Alignment PR#57: securitySchema indication, scopes naming format
• Clarification/rewording around term "phone number" -> "mobile phone number"
• Clarification in "Tag" description
• Adding "" to some example values
• Regarding blockchainNetworkId defined two exceptions:

400 BLOCKCHAIN_PUBLIC_ADDRESS.INVALID_BLOCKCHAIN_NETWORK_IDENTIFIER. To control format (i.e. indicating a blockchainNetworkId not covered yet or not respecting the format agreed)
403 BLOCKCHAIN_PUBLIC_ADDRESS.BLOCKCHAIN_NETWORK_IDENTIFIER_NOT_ALLOWED. To control business case when a Telco Operator does not manage a valid blockchainNetworkId within their business logic.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #19
Alignment with Commonalities#57

Special notes for reviewers:

Blockchain Identification parameter name set to blockchainNetworkId

[PedroDiez]

Thanks @grgpapadopoulos, @sebKoeller for the review so far.
I will be adding the exception pending

[rartych]

I guess it would be more correct to use the expression "associated with" instead of "associated to" in the descriptions.
There is again discussion in Commonalities about including headers like x-correlator in CAMARA OpenAPI files, when the issue camaraproject/Commonalities#77 is clarified we should align the specification here.
The same with operation tags - camaraproject/Commonalities#80

[PedroDiez]

I guess it would be more correct to use the expression "associated with" instead of "associated to" in the descriptions. There is again discussion in Commonalities about including headers like x-correlator in CAMARA OpenAPI files, when the issue camaraproject/Commonalities#77 is clarified we should align the specification here. The same with operation tags - camaraproject/Commonalities#80

Thanks Rafal!

• Regarding the expression "associated with" instead of "associated to". I will be correcting it
• Regarding the Commonalities Issues: Have taken note of them to make adaptations required based on their outputs

[PedroDiez]

Thanks @grgpapadopoulos, @sebKoeller

Will merge it during meeting