Re: Web Access Control - Authorization condition with capability detection

FYI, it is easier to implement a delegation model (which covers more use cases like chains of delegation when the actual agent is unknown and can only be determined at runtime)

https://github.com/w3c/odrl/issues/112

___________________________________
Joshua Cornejo
marketdata <https://www.marketdata.md/>
smart authorisation management for the AI-era

On 25/03/2026, 13:26, "elf Pavlik" <elf-pavlik@hackers4peace.net> wrote:

    Thank you Sarven!
    
    Would you like to bring it up during a CG call?
    
    I would like to suggest next week, since Christoph should be available again.
    https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9d3965a2-f4a0-4346-8ca6-8eadee10051c/20260401T140000/
    
    As I mentioned many times my implementation relies on client constraints so it is a very important feature to me.
    Currently registry pods are using ACP as in https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/blob/main/proposals/evaluation/uc-2.5.2-client-constraints.md
    
    Please let us know whenever, and if, you would like to put it on CG meeting agenda.
    
    Best regards,
    elf Pavlik
    
    
    
    On Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 at 6:28 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
    
    > Ahoy hoy!
    > 
    > After much deliberation and popular demand, there is now a PR:
    > 
    > https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec/pull/134
    > 
    > proposing capability detection for extensible authorisation conditions 
    > in WAC. Servers can signal supported condition types, and clients can 
    > use them accordingly.
    > 
    > As anticipated in 
    > https://solidproject.org/TR/wac#authorization-extensions , this version 
    > adds initial condition types to the core spec, issuer and client 
    > identification. The design allows future types, e.g. time based 
    > conditions or ODRL policies.
    > 
    > Changes are backwards compatible. Servers without condition support are 
    > unaffected. Adoption can be incremental.
    > 
    > That said, we want to do this properly. This is also a call for 
    > implementers or a call for commitment to implement so that we can align 
    > the specification with real and open implementation experience before it 
    > advances further. Please chime in!
    > 
    > For those interested in technical writing, review of the PR would be 
    > much appreciated.
    > 
    > As usual, myself and others are available to support the community in 
    > understanding the proposed changes. Feel free to reach out in the chats, 
    > meetings, or catch me at in-person events where I am happy to convene an 
    > impromptu WAC-support Group.
    > 
    > -Sarven
    > https://csarven.ca/#i
    >

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2026 16:28:30 UTC