Problem description
The current API design guidelines in section 11.6 points to CAMARA-API-access-and-user-consent.md doc in ICM WG to follow security guidelines and then goes in detail to describe scope-naming in section 11.6.1.

We do not explicitly document in design guidelines if Camara supports the use of wildcard scope (to represent "all scopes included case") in addition to the usual granular scopes. This is only documented in the applying-purpose-concept-section of the CAMARA-API-access-and-user-consent.md document.

We need to clearly document if we support the use of wildcard scope in Camara and add this in the design guidelines and if there is a decision to support wildcard scope, the naming convention for such a wildcard scope has to be documented in design guidelines. Every subproject needs to also add this within the spec file so that we do not have a situation where some providers support it and some not.

Expected action
Get a consensus in commonalities on the support of wildcard scopes in Camara and if we agree to support this, it should be clearly documented in design guidelines and the individual API spec files.

Additional context

• This also impacts Subscription-Issue4: Need to change the scope pattern for explicit subscriptions #163

• The current PR in ICM which deals with the Camara OIDC Profile mentions the scope parameter and says that it should follow the API spec file listed scopes and this would mean that if we support wildcard scope, it has to make its way into the spec file https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/blob/a97ffae7ffa091796bbde424428b660fe7418330/documentation/CAMARA-Security-Interoperability.md#the-scope-parameter