crypto-address improvements.

Currently the [BCR-2020-006](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/papers/bcr-2020-009-address.md) standard defines the crypto-address UR type but the definition is a little bit ambiguous.

On [Example/Test Vector 1](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/papers/bcr-2020-009-address.md#exampletest-vector-1) the specified P2PKH address `1BvBMSEYstWetqTFn5Au4m4GFg7xJaNVN2` does not include the type of the address in the encoded CBOR, making it ambiguous to differentiate between it P2SH and P2PKH as these are both 20-byte hashes.

On the CDDL comment it should also:

```diff
- ; For addresses of type `p2wphk`, the sha256 of the script bytes (32 bytes).
+ ; For addresses of type `p2wpkh`, the witness program (20 bytes).
```

It is not a script hash but the witness program and for P2WPKH it is 20 bytes, for P2WSH it is 32 bytes.

P2WSH could be also added and P2TR addresses too.

So:

- P2PKH, P2SH and P2WPKH types of addresses use 20-bytes of data.
- P2WSH and P2TR use 32-bytes of data.

I think to differentiate these the `type` field should be always included when `info` specifies a Bitcoin address. Also maybe the `info` field should have a `.default` specifier but I don't know if CDDL allows that for maps or if the behavior is to skip a field in a map completely when all the fields of the inner map can be ommited because of the default values.