GM: Clarify actions and add missing actions

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

see Taka’s table

[Lukasz Jaromin]

Thank you Torsten for creating separate issue for that. Taka has done great job creating raw table with all key combinations. I think that would be great to take into account use cases context to prioritize some and/or potentially eliminate (disallow) other combinations. 

Arguably it may be hard to  find use case mapping for combinations # 3,4,5,7,8,9. I may be wrong though. What others think about it?

When it comest to #10 that is append use case - it would require decent UX to make sure end user understands what is going to happen. Unless we know that some regional regulations require it now it should be rather secondary priority.

‌

When I think about the rest in the context of use case mapping:

2 - Regular create

6 - Covers “update” when mutable consents grants are not allowed by AS. Useful mostly in cases when concurrent consent grants are allowed by AS.

11 - Update when mutable consent grants are allowed by AS

14 (like 13 yet w/o revoke) - error cases handling e.g. update attempt when mutable consent grants and concurrent consents grants from single client are not allowed by AS

Thoughts?

[Stuart Low]

Taking this. Intent is to add replace as an action to the recent merge from use cases.

[Dima Postnikov]

Stuart to create a PR

[Stuart Low]

https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/pull-requests/266/introduce-replace-action

[Dima Postnikov]

PR merged