Fix authorization token Bearer prefix spelling in examples

[srosenda]

the prefix should be spelled exactly as "Bearer", see RFC 6750, section 2.1. Authorization Request Header Field https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6750#section-2.1.

Fixes #371.

[bc-pi]

"BEARER" is perfectly legal https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-authentication-scheme

[srosenda]

According to RFC9110 the authentication scheme is indeed case-insensitive contrary to how it is defined in RFC6750, so this issue can be closed. Would it still be good to unify the scheme spelling in the examples?

Edit: additionally I did not know that ABNF literal text strings are case-insensitive: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5234#page-5. Hence the "Bearer" in RFC6750 can be spelled "BEARER" or "BeArEr", etc.

[Sakurann]

@srosenda thanks a lot for doing the PR! Do you have contribution agreement/IPR signed with OIDF DCP WG?

[srosenda]

@srosenda thanks a lot for doing the PR! Do you have contribution agreement/IPR signed with OIDF DCP WG?

@Sakurann Thanks! I have not signed the contribution agreement. I am checking how to proceed on the matter.

[Sakurann]

@srosenda you can always sign an individual contribution agreement. that would unblock us in a minute.

[srosenda]

Rebased with main and amended the commit to unify the spelling also in the Token Response's toke_type parameter. Rewrote the commit message to state that this is not a correction, but an unification aimed to increase clarity.

[srosenda]

@srosenda you can always sign an individual contribution agreement. that would unblock us in a minute.

@Sakurann finally I should be covered by a contribution agreement signed by Digital and Population Data Services Agency Finland. Sorry for the delay.

[srosenda]

Fixed terminology to refer to authorization scheme in the commit message and signed the commit.

[jogu]

Editorial, 4 approvals, open a while - merging! Thanks @srosenda !