Hi Sung,

Thanks for the detailed and thought-through PFC!

I'm generally ok with the "resolve paths only" and intent-based authorizer
approach. However, PR #3427 does not appear to have the latter part. Do you
intend to have multiple PRs or update 3427 with the intent-based Authorizer
interface changes?

Either way is fine with me, but I'd like to see the end-to-end solution, if
possible and not too burdensome (e.g. by making draft follow-up PRs). WDYT?

Thanks,
Dmitri.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:54 AM Sung Yun <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> As a follow up to the many points that were brought up to prior
> proposals on decoupling RBAC resolution from catalog API calls, I’ve
> created an RFC[1] proposing a refactor of the Polaris authorization
> flow. The goal of this proposal is to better support external,
> policy-based authorizers (e.g. OpaPolarisAuthorizer) without requiring
> Polaris-native RBAC entities in Catalog API execution paths. The core
> idea is to decouple RBAC and principal resolution from handlers, move
> authorization and existence checks into the Authorizer, and shift the
> Authorizer API toward intent-level inputs (principal, operation, and
> path-based targets), while preserving existing behavior for
> PolarisAuthorizerImpl.
>
> This proposal clarifies the longer term goals enabled by PR #3427[2],
> and explores how resolution requirements can be driven by the selected
> PolarisAuthorizer and the API being handled, rather than being
> hard-coded into every handler code path. It aims to keep handlers
> focused on execution, centralize authorization API input semantics,
> and align more closely with widely adopted subject–action–resource
> ABAC authorization input models.
>
> I’d appreciate review and feedback on the general direction and the
> open questions captured in the RFC. I’m also planning to walk through
> this proposal in the Polaris Community Sync tomorrow and would welcome
> discussion there as well. Thanks in advance for your time and input.
>
> Cheers,
> Sung
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vV4p35feUqrEuG4ciZ2ccPJTli1tR4c9YD4M_2Bi0Wc/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0
> [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3427
>

Reply via email to