Clarify purpose of model used to publish status lists

[Hermann-Core]

There is some ambiguity around the current model used to publish status lists. It's unclear whether the model is intended for publishing new status lists or updating existing ones. Specifically, the updates field name doesn't clearly communicate the intended action, and could be misleading, especially if the operation is closer to publishing than modifying.
@Christiantyemele @IngridPuppet

[IngridPuppet]

I admit to finding that payload confusing and even misleading.

Some more concerns aside the "updates" naming:

• Why is the client required to provide an ID for publishing a new list? To move to the simpler integer format, like recently advocated by @Hermann-Core, I guess that would be a thing to remove, letting the server generate these identifiers.
• Why is the client required to provide a bitsize while it could clearly not even match the statuses about to be published?

As exemplified by the problematic appreciation of the "updates" field, it is generally preferable to think about such payloads as resources, rather than data for incremental operations.

[Hermann-Core]

@Christiantyemele could you elaborate more about the design approach?

[Christiantyemele]

@Christiantyemele could you elaborate more about the design approach?

are you talking of the updates field here?. if yes then we might find a more descriptive name, i just had trouble finding a name to represent both the the update and publish payload