+1, thanks for the discussion everyone! Yes, I meant to flip it to "ready to review" earlier; flipped it now. I'm still working through the existing set of comments and may need to come back to it in the next few days before getting proper replies, but feel free to add additional comments.
Recapping the community sync discussion re: Dmitri's last message, I'm fully aligned on building the sharing on top of existing authz mechanisms, instead of being a new mechanism, and indeed external IdP is intended to be a first-class supported use case. The latest distinction is that the ExternalConsumer isn't fundamentally identified by any internal PolarisPrincipal, but rather that it serves as a wrapper that references some identity, whether that identity is defined in an external IdP without any latent in-Polaris representation or if it's a hidden PolarisPrincipal (for the Polaris-standalone RBAC use case). The sharing endpoint via ExternalConsumer is the only layer of indirection at the API entry-point, but then once the set of activePrincipalRoles is resolved, the underlying authz engine doesn't behave any differently from normal Polaris authz. On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks everyone for the discussion! > > As a next step discussed in today's community sync, we will start reviewing > the spec change. > > Hi Dennis, is this PR ready for review? > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5446 > > Yufei > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 12:23 PM Travis Bowen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for this discussion Dennis! > > > > Wanted to weigh in with my thoughts and questions. > > > > > > > > Do you prefer /api/shares-management/v1/ > > > instead of adding to /api/management/v1? > > > > > > While I can see the argument for a share specific management endpoint > there > > doesn't seem to be a clear obvious choice from what I can see - I lean > > towards /api/management as being the central place for all the > management - > > share or not. As long as we're careful not to leak share types or non > share > > types into the wrong api (which could be helped by having separate yamls) > > then it feels reasonable to have all under the management api. > > > > Also went through the doc and PR and made several comments as well. > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 9:54 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Prithvi mentioned ExternalConsumer and principals. I'd like to > > > reinforce the need to further discuss "consumers" and principals and > how > > > they relate to IdP and Polaris Authentication. > > > > > > From my POV, share access control should not be a new mechanism but > > should > > > build on top of the existing extensible authentication / authorization > > > framework. Supporting external IdP for shares would be a valuable > feature > > > IMHO. > > > > > > Side note: I'm posting comments on PR 5446 too. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 3:30 PM Prithvi S <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > Thank you for reviving this, and for the concrete spec in PR 5446.. > the > > > > journeys doc was especially helpful for seeing the end-to-end flow. > > > > > > > > I agree this is worth doing, and that v1 is more than a tutorial on > > > today's > > > > RBAC. A partner principal on /api/catalog is already possible; what > > seems > > > > valuable is a first-class share (enumerated members, a restricted > > > consumer, > > > > a listing as the binding and audit unit) plus a segregated, read-only > > > > Iceberg REST surface with credential vending. Stock Iceberg REST as > the > > > > consumer protocol, and keeping Flight and Polaris-to-Polaris > federation > > > out > > > > of v1, all sound right to me. > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong view yet on the URL layout (management vs > shares > > > > prefix, nested vs top-level, prefix keyed by share vs listing) and am > > > happy > > > > to follow whatever the community prefers there. > > > > > > > > A few things I wanted to check on the spec itself, several of these > > echo > > > > points already raised on the list: > > > > > > > > 1. Membership as source of truth. If a hidden catalog role is > > > independently > > > > grantable, a share could be widened without going through the share > > APIs. > > > > Would it make sense to say the data plane authorizes against > > membership + > > > > listing, and that any backing roles are not user-visible / not > > > > independently grantable? > > > > 2. ExternalConsumer and principals. The Aug 7 recap already noted we > > > should > > > > not assume a PrincipalEntity behind every ExternalConsumer. The > > journeys > > > > still describe granting the consumer a share principal role, I assume > > > that > > > > is an implementation sketch for v1 client_id/secret, not the public > > > model? > > > > 3. Listing expiration. JB's original note was "share these tables > with > > > this > > > > consumer until this date." Credential expiry is a bit different. > Would > > a > > > > listing-level expiration (and maybe ACTIVE/SUSPENDED) be in scope for > > v1? > > > > 4. Time-travel. As raised in the community sync, sharing via Iceberg > > REST > > > > means historical snapshots remain readable. Totally fine for v1 to > > > support > > > > only full history, would an explicit field on the share help so a > later > > > > CURRENT_ONLY option is not a breaking surprise? > > > > 5. Consumer data plane. The current file is control-plane only, which > > is > > > a > > > > good first step. It might help to list the Iceberg routes that are > > > mounted, > > > > that writes 404, that non-members 404, and that /config does not > return > > > > provider catalog properties, so implementations don't diverge. > > > > > > > > Two smaller notes, if useful: in the J1 journey the consumer still > > posts > > > to > > > > /api/catalog/v1/oauth/tokens, if partners are not supposed to touch > the > > > > internal catalog API, should the default token endpoint live on the > > > shares > > > > surface (or an external IdP)? And on Dmitri's point about share > > operators > > > > vs catalog operators, a SHARE_MANAGE privilege on the bound catalog > > > > (independent of CATALOG_MANAGE_ACCESS) would make that work on any > URL > > > > prefix. > > > > > > > > Happy to review the next revision, and thanks again to both of you > for > > > > driving this. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Prithvi S > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:38 PM Dennis Huo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As discussed live, looks like we both might have some drafts we can > > > > compare > > > > > and choose/merge from :) > > > > > > > > > > Here's my current draft spec PR; it opts for my preferred syntax > > > choices > > > > > for now (/api/management/ for share-management, /api/shares/ for > > > consumer > > > > > data-plane): https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5446 > > > > > > > > > > Since we were talking about preferring mdfiles for design iteration > > > > here's > > > > > a companion design-addendum which just enumerates what the > end-to-end > > > > user > > > > > journeys look like syntactically for each combination of design > > > choices: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/dennishuo/dhuo-public-provenance/blob/main/polaris-sharing/design/shares-journeys.md > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if anyone prefers a Google Doc version of the > > > > > design-addendum for easier commenting, or if the design-addendum > > itself > > > > > should also be modeled as a PR on some free-floating branch just to > > > > capture > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 7:22 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am resuming work on this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding our recent discussion, I will move forward with > opening a > > > > > > draft PR for the /api/shares/v1 endpoint to help illustrate the > > > > > > design. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will update this thread once the PR is ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 5:04 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the recap! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that share management is probably distinct from > > > > catalog > > > > > > > management. A user who already has a realm+catalog may have an > > > option > > > > > to > > > > > > > manage shares, but not the catalog itself. Would it make sense > to > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > the share management API from the general Polaris management > > API? I > > > > > mean > > > > > > > using a different prefix for URIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: /api/shares/v1/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously clients should not make any assumptions about the > base > > > path > > > > > > > (/api/shares), which could be different in different > deployments > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > going through a gateway). Clients must be able to take the base > > URI > > > > as > > > > > a > > > > > > > config option. Path segments after /v1/ will be specified by > > > Polaris > > > > > > (Open > > > > > > > API yaml). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 3:52 AM Dennis Huo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to recap some of the discussion from today's community > > sync, > > > > > > Dmitri, > > > > > > > > Robert, and Alex helped raise a few considerations to roll > into > > > the > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > design/prototyping phase: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Given the way sharing is packaged as a separate thing, it > > may > > > > not > > > > > be > > > > > > > > obvious to users that historical snapshots are equally > > available > > > to > > > > > > > > consumers as the latest snapshot (by virtue of sharing via > the > > > > > > standard IRC > > > > > > > > protocol) - we should make sure to document that fact well, > > > > including > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > pitfall that deleting rows by updating a table doesn't > > > necessarily > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > those rows become inaccessible to consumers > > > > > > > > 2. Make sure not to hard-code assumptions about the existence > > of > > > an > > > > > > > > internal PrincipalEntity backing an ExternalConsumer - even > if > > > the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > MVP implementation uses a nested/hidden Principal of some > type > > > that > > > > > > holds a > > > > > > > > Polaris-managed client_id/client_secret, the 3rd-party IdP > use > > > > cases > > > > > > > > require "implicit" Principals resolved via the oauth token. > In > > > such > > > > > > cases > > > > > > > > the ExternalConsumer contains the metadata coordinating the > > > > three-way > > > > > > > > handshake between the data-provider, data-consumer, and IdP, > > but > > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > no PrincipalEntity underlying it. > > > > > > > > 3. Longer-term, we may want to tackle "on-behalf-of" > semantics > > - > > > > > > initially, > > > > > > > > the way an ExternalConsumer works is that the finer-grained > > > > consumer > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > share a single ExternalConsumer identity, just like how a > > > FEDERATED > > > > > > catalog > > > > > > > > shares a single service principal in its ConnectionConfig. > But > > in > > > > > some > > > > > > > > cases the consumer may want some end-to-end attribution of > > > > > fine-grained > > > > > > > > users, like "on-behalf-of: bob @ consumercompany.com" when > the > > > > > > > > ExternalConsumer implicit principal is something like > > > > > > > > "externalconsumer$consumercompany" > > > > > > > > 4. We can iterate more rapidly on a draft spec PR and also > > expand > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > detailed technical design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 6:12 PM Dennis Huo <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks JB for reviving this thread, and belated thanks to > all > > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > > > > who have left feedback in the doc or this thread so far! > And > > > > > > apologies > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the silence on this, it's still been on my radar but I got > > > > > > distracted by > > > > > > > > > some other work for awhile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Echoing JB's summary, the proposal is indeed that we're > > mostly > > > > just > > > > > > > > > reusing existing Authz/RBAC machinery, and the translation > > > layer > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > sharing concepts sits *on top of* the existing authz engine > > as > > > > much > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So even if we're adding layers of indirection on > > > > > > ExternalConsumer/Listing > > > > > > > > > -> Principal/PrincipalRole/CatalogRole+grants, the parts > that > > > end > > > > > up > > > > > > > > doing > > > > > > > > > the underlying authz just reuse existing Authorizer logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on some other offline discussion with Dmitri, I > > realized > > > > why > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > discussion around "requirements" may have been confusing: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. My attempts to shorten the doc inadvertently cut out > some > > of > > > > the > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > "abstract requirements" formulations > > > > > > > > > 2. The project in itself is somewhat more of a "form *as* > > > > function" > > > > > > > > > feature than *strictly* functional in nature -- for > example, > > > many > > > > > > > > correctly > > > > > > > > > pointed out that "sharing" via the existing RBAC/Principals > > > > syntax > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > already *possible* just by letting a cross-org "consumer" > be > > a > > > > > > > > first-class > > > > > > > > > principal and access your own company's main Polaris > catalog > > > > > > endpoints. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For (1) I added this to the Requirements section in the doc > > to > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > clarify the abstract form of the data model element: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *A. Sharing Container*: Container concept for holding > things > > > you > > > > > > want to > > > > > > > > > share - “ShareEntity” > > > > > > > > > *B. Consumer Identity*: Special flavor of principal-like > > entity > > > > > > > > > representing a consumer relationship - “ExternalConsumer” > > > > > > > > > *C. Map Containers to Consumers*: A way to specify letting > a > > > > given > > > > > > > > > consumer access a given sharing container - “Listing” > > > > > > > > > *D. Consumer Endpoint*: A segregated API access-point for > > > > > consumers - > > > > > > > > > “EndpointConfig” > > > > > > > > > *E. Objects in Containers*: A way to specify which > in-catalog > > > > > objects > > > > > > > > > belong in the big sharing container - “ShareMembership” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This still bakes in a bit of implementation detail since it > > > begs > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > question why not just let core RBAC/grants handle (C) and > > (E). > > > To > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > end, > > > > > > > > > and addressing problem (2) of where the "form *is* > > function", I > > > > > > added a > > > > > > > > > "Concept Mapping" tab: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y0yQi5iWbmuTHPkFiIs7WjIiC3EXJTl1PzZ-wtoRnZ0/edit?tab=t.rms5bxy0jntc#heading=h.wuh830gzomt0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the details of more advanced features can still be > > > hashed > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > incrementally without blocking work on an MVP (and > certainly > > > the > > > > > MVP > > > > > > > > scope > > > > > > > > > could be trimmed so we can launch-and-iterate), so as long > as > > > > > there's > > > > > > > > > community alignment on the general direction I propose we > > could > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > forward on basic building blocks. Or if building blocks > > > > themselves > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > controversial we could still proceed with some prototyping > > > across > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > options. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 10:44 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I would like to resume the discussion about Data Sharing > in > > > > > Polaris > > > > > > > > >> and propose focusing on three major items to help us move > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. What is data sharing? > > > > > > > > >> In a nutshell, it is an open protocol proposal > allowing > > > > > > > > >> organizations to share live data without copying or > > > replication. > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> main goal is zero-copy sharing achieved through shared > > > metadata > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> authorization. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Polaris, this would mean: > > > > > > > > >> a. The consumer is authenticated as usual. > > > > > > > > >> b. The Polaris server provides the consumer with direct > > access > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> data files (e.g., Parquet, as specified in the > > metadata.json). > > > > > > > > >> c. The consumer reads the data files directly using their > > > > > preferred > > > > > > > > >> tool (e.g., a query engine). > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> While Polaris already has most of the necessary underlying > > > > > > > > >> capabilities, we need clear branding/packaging around this > > use > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > >> Specifically, this means: > > > > > > > > >> a. A share is a dedicated catalog in the Polaris server, > or > > a > > > > > > catalog > > > > > > > > >> role scoped to specific namespaces. > > > > > > > > >> b. A recipient is represented by a principal and a > principal > > > > role. > > > > > > > > >> c. A consumer profile consists of the catalog URI and the > > > OAuth2 > > > > > > > > >> client_id/client_secret. > > > > > > > > >> d. We use credential vending (temporary STS credentials) > for > > > > > > consumer > > > > > > > > >> access to the data files. > > > > > > > > >> e. We use the Polaris IRC layer to expose the metadata and > > the > > > > > file > > > > > > > > >> locations/access. > > > > > > > > >> f. We can also support Polaris-to-Polaris sharing via > > > > Federation. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Concretely: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> - On the provider side, we use the standard Polaris RBAC > > > model > > > > > > > > >> (assigning grants to catalog roles, and assigning those > > > catalog > > > > > > roles > > > > > > > > >> to principal roles): > > > > > > > > >> - Create a dedicated principal with its own > > > > > > > > client_id/client_secret. > > > > > > > > >> - Create a catalog role with TABLE_READ_DATA, > > > TABLE_LIST, > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> NAMESPACE_LIST grants on the namespaces to be shared (no > > write > > > > > > > > >> grants). > > > > > > > > >> - Create a principal role per destination, attach > the > > > > > catalog > > > > > > > > >> role, and assign the principal. > > > > > > > > >> - The destination engine uses loadTable with the > > > > > > > > >> "X-Iceberg-Access-Delegation: vended-credentials" header. > > > > Polaris > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > >> emits temporary, read-only storage credentials, allowing > the > > > > > engine > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> read the data files directly from the owner's bucket > without > > > > > > accessing > > > > > > > > >> the rest of the bucket. This achieves zero-copy sharing. > > > > > > > > >> - On the recipient/consumer side, no special > configuration > > > is > > > > > > > > >> needed; any IRC client can use it. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2. What is data sharing not? > > > > > > > > >> I previously considered adding an Arrow Flight > endpoint > > to > > > > > > > > >> Polaris, but I no longer think it is a good idea for the > > > initial > > > > > > > > >> phase. An Arrow Flight endpoint would serve the data > > directly, > > > > > which > > > > > > > > >> would require Polaris to read the data and expose it. I am > > > > against > > > > > > > > >> embedding a query engine in Polaris, as this tight > coupling > > > > feels > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > >> an anti-pattern. While we could use a delegation service > to > > > > serve > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> Flight endpoint, I think it should be considered for a > later > > > > > phase, > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> at all, since a Flight endpoint might be better suited as > a > > > > > consumer > > > > > > > > >> responsibility and could encourage data copying. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The first phase should focus on packaging and branding the > > > > > > > > >> capabilities we already have. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 3. What could the Data Sharing "package" look like in > > > Polaris? > > > > > > > > >> To make Data Sharing obvious and easy to use, we > should > > > > > > introduce > > > > > > > > >> the missing concept of a "share"—a named definition that > > users > > > > can > > > > > > > > >> list, discover, and define. The goal is to materialize the > > > > user's > > > > > > > > >> intent ("I want to share these tables with this consumer > > until > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> date") into standard Polaris entities (principal, > principal > > > > role, > > > > > > > > >> catalog role, and grants). > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Therefore, I propose adding a /shares endpoint to the > > Polaris > > > > > > > > >> Management API to package and materialize these share > > > > definitions > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > >> Polaris entities. This would provide a usable, > first-version > > > > > package > > > > > > > > >> for Polaris Data Sharing. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I hope this addresses Dmitri's questions and provides a > more > > > > > > concrete > > > > > > > > >> scenario for Polaris Data Sharing. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > > >> JB > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 7:46 AM Dennis Huo < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi All, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > One big emerging enterprise use case coming up as more > > > people > > > > > > > > >> consolidate > > > > > > > > >> > Data Lakehouses and Catalogs is something commonly known > > as > > > > > "Data > > > > > > > > >> Sharing", > > > > > > > > >> > an more specifically over the course of adoption of open > > > table > > > > > > formats > > > > > > > > >> > "Open Data Sharing". > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Examples of existing managed service providers' Data > > Sharing > > > > > > features: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > https://www.databricks.com/product/delta-sharing > > > > > > > > >> > > > https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/data-sharing-intro > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/datashare-overview.html > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/analytics-hub-introduction > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric/governance/external-data-sharing-overview > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > The basic idea is that when you share data between > > different > > > > > > > > companies, > > > > > > > > >> you > > > > > > > > >> > need a first-class governance/management layer and extra > > > > > > > > >> bells-and-whistles > > > > > > > > >> > that are distinct from just the basic capabilities of > RBAC > > > or > > > > > > > > >> generalized > > > > > > > > >> > access-control (i.e. if you're sharing across > > > > > partially-untrusted > > > > > > org > > > > > > > > >> > boundaries, you don't just let the consumer organization > > log > > > > > into > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > >> > datalake like one of your own employees). > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > JB and I put together this high-level proposal for > > > supporting > > > > > Open > > > > > > > > >> Sharing > > > > > > > > >> > in Polaris: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y0yQi5iWbmuTHPkFiIs7WjIiC3EXJTl1PzZ-wtoRnZ0/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Tentatively, it means adding ~5 logical data model > > > constructs, > > > > > > some of > > > > > > > > >> > which may be a first-class PolarisEntity type, others > > > subtypes > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> existing > > > > > > > > >> > entities, and others just a nested construct: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > - ShareEntity (would behave similarly to a Catalog) > > > > > > > > >> > - ExternalConsumer (mostly inherits from Principal) > > > > > > > > >> > - Listing (Similar to a "role grant" but has > different > > > > > > metadata) > > > > > > > > >> > - EndpointConfig (nested config under Listing) > > > > > > > > >> > - ShareMembership (Similar to a "securable grant" but > > > > > different > > > > > > > > >> metadata) > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Feedback/comments welcome! I'll also bring it up for > live > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> > there's time in the community sync. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Cheers, > > > > > > > > >> > Dennis > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
