Light Freshness: ASP.NET - 6 Security/Auth topics

[GitHubber17]

This PR contains light freshness updates to 6 articles:

• Introduction to authorization in ASP.NET Core
• Custom Authorization Policy Providers using IAuthorizationPolicyProvider in ASP.NET Core
• Hash passwords in ASP.NET Core
• Enable QR code generation for TOTP authenticator apps in ASP.NET Core (moniker range=">= aspnetcore-8.0")
• Map, customize, and transform claims in ASP.NET Core (moniker range=">= aspnetcore-6.0")
• Multifactor authentication in ASP.NET Core (moniker range=">= aspnetcore-9.0")
  -- Also updated 1 include
  -- Section Example: OpenID Connect Duende IdentityServer server
  There are several instances of the term "this" that need context for clarity:
  Displays if the Identity comes from an app that requires MFA, but the user hasn't activated this in Identity
  Informs the user and adds a link to activate this
  Because the client sent this with mfa set, this can then be checked

For details, see ADO request 568764.

---

Internal previews

📄 File	🔗 Preview link
aspnetcore/security/authentication/claims.md	customer intent: As an ASP.NET developer, I want to work with claims in my ASP.NET Core app, so I can map claims, do transformations, and make customizations.
aspnetcore/security/authentication/identity-enable-qrcodes.md	Enable QR code generation for TOTP authenticator apps in ASP.NET Core
aspnetcore/security/authentication/mfa.md	Multifactor authentication in ASP.NET Core
aspnetcore/security/authorization/iauthorizationpolicyprovider.md	customer intent: As an ASP.NET developer, I want to use a custom IAuthorizationPolicyProvider in my ASP.NET Core app, so I can dynamically generate authorization policies.
aspnetcore/security/authorization/introduction.md	aspnetcore/security/authorization/introduction
aspnetcore/security/data-protection/consumer-apis/password-hashing.md	customer intent: As an ASP.NET developer, I want to use the Data Protection APIs, so I can hash passwords in my ASP.NET Core apps.

[GitHubber17]

Hi @wadepickett - Refreshed topics ready for your review. See the top comment for details.

Notes:

• One topic has some text to clarify (see top comment)
• The preview section is missing a link for the "mfa.md" file. Here's the link from the Build report:
  https://review.learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/authentication/mfa?view=aspnetcore-11.0&branch=pr-en-us-37148

Thanks

[wadepickett]

Suggested change

	## Extend or add custom claims using 'IClaimsTransformation'
	## Extend or add custom claims using `IClaimsTransformation`

Code identifier and should have backticks per repo guidelines.

[GitHubber17]

The editorial instructions say not to overload formatting in headers, i.e., don't apply both bold (from the header H2) and also inline code - which is why I swapped the code ticks for single quotes.

[wadepickett]

Suggested change

	title: Enable QR code generation for TOTP authentication
	title: Enable QR code generation for TOTP authenticator apps in ASP.NET Core

I think it is best in this case to leave "ASP.NET Core" in there to differentiate from similar topics that are not using this framework.

[GitHubber17]

The metadata criteria indicates the title attribute length should be 50 characters or less, which is why I made the adjustments. The publishing system essentially limits chars to 50 in the title proper. However, if the titleSuffix attribute is present, the total allowed chars increases to 65. You could add "ASP.NET Core" in the metadata titleSuffix. The preview text in search results would render as "Enable QR code generation for TOTP authentication - ASP.NET Core" - Here's the criteria: Metadata required for content > title and Rules for writing meta titles. I don't usually automatically add an article-level titleSuffix because sometimes the repo defines the attribute at the folder level or repo-level in a build JSON (docfx.json or similar).

[wadepickett]

Approved, assuming the few minor items I suggested are fixed.
Great work.

@tdykstra, leaving this unmerged for a while so you can have a chance to review as well.

[GitHubber17]

@wadepickett - Thank you for your review. I applied most of your suggestions. For two edits, I left you return comments.

Also, I wanted to confirm that you saw my note to you in the top comment about clarity for instances of this in the text. You addressed one instance in your notes, but not all. Just confirming the other text is clear as-is.