Minor modifications to Security RP to improve documentation clarity

[chlahav]

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

• The title of the PR is clear and informative.
• There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
• Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
• If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
• Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• My spec meets the review criteria:
  • The spec conforms to the Swagger 2.0 specification.
  • The spec follows the guidelines described in the Swagger checklist document.
  • Validation tools were run on swagger spec(s) and have all been fixed in this PR.

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-python

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-ruby

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-ruby

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-libraries-for-java

[AutorestCI]

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-node

[lmazuel]

Hi @chlahav
Please look at the Travis CI, and fix Linter PR_only=true.
Thanks!

[chlahav]

Hi @lmazuel,
we fixed what we can, we have only the bare minimum of errors:

• linter- the only error is the unrecognised "email" string format. we were told to keep it in the initial PR.
• azurebot - I couldn't find a way to avoid some these errors and represent the API clearly. we are working on fixing the other errors (descriptions) - this is not a degradation. we would like to fix these in a different PR since this PR is urgent for us.
• BreakingChange - all the real breaking changes are intentional and they were made to describe the API properly (no clients were created yet)
  • added\removed path\definition\client parameter - all these errors are about paths\definitions that we did not add or remove, is this a bug?
  • changed operation ID - we did change the operation ID since it was not generated as exacted in the documentation. we still don't have any published API so, AFAIK, it should be fine. is there something else we need to do here?
  • Security contacts changes in path - the current version does not represent the real API, this is a fix to that
• liveValidation - I didn't see anything actionable from this test. is there something that we should do?

[lmazuel]

Confirmed with @sergey-shandar the CI error, merging