Suggested edits for identity doc updates

[schavis]

Description

What does this PR do?

TODO only if you're a HashiCorp employee

• Backport Labels: If this fix needs to be backported, use the appropriate backport/ label that matches the desired release branch. Note that in the CE repo, the latest release branch will look like backport/x.x.x, but older release branches will be backport/ent/x.x.x+ent.
  • LTS: If this fixes a critical security vulnerability or severity 1 bug, it will also need to be backported to the current LTS versions of Vault. To ensure this, use all available enterprise labels.
• ENT Breakage: If this PR either 1) removes a public function OR 2) changes the signature
  of a public function, even if that change is in a CE file, double check that
  applying the patch for this PR to the ENT repo and running tests doesn't
  break any tests. Sometimes ENT only tests rely on public functions in CE
  files.
• Jira: If this change has an associated Jira, it's referenced either
  in the PR description, commit message, or branch name.
• RFC: If this change has an associated RFC, please link it in the description.
• ENT PR: If this change has an associated ENT PR, please link it in the
  description. Also, make sure the changelog is in this PR, not in your ENT PR.

[github-actions]

CI Results:
All Go tests succeeded! ✅

[github-actions]

Build Results:
All builds succeeded! ✅

[banks]

Here's the list of tempalte varaible - it's the four that refer to entity or group name that matter.

[banks]

This is looking awesome Sarah. I think the entity and groups and external refs are still my originals so I didn't review them further.

I think the rest of this is super close and pretty much ready to merge to the final PR. There are a couple of smaller notes inline that might be worth fixing up here before we move over so we don't loose track.

[banks]

This looks great Sarah! Thanks so much for your hard work on this!

I had a couple of minor suggestions inline but not blocking I don't think.

We talked about merging this back in to my PR but honestly I think at this stage the original feedback there is likely all not super relevant so how about getting one other person on Eng to review this one and then merge directly from here?

[banks]

These comments bring across all the previous feedback on the old PR that still applies. I think they are good ideas but not show-stoppers so see what you think @schavis

Given this being brought across, I don't see any real reason to merge this back to the other PR vs. just merge directly!

[schavis]

We talked about merging this back in to my PR but honestly I think at this stage the original feedback there is likely all not super relevant so how about getting one other person on Eng to review this one and then merge directly from here?

SGTM. I'll work through the remaining comments and merge the docs today, but feel free to ping me (or create a new PR) if I miss anything :)

The base branch was changed.