# Solid Authorization Panel
February 17th, 2021

## Present

- Justin B
- Henry S
- Emmet T
- Josh C
- Eric P
- e Pavlik
- Matthieu B

## Agenda

* Announcements
* Review Minutes (2m)
* Accept [prior minutes 2021-02-10](https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/169)
* Accept [prior minutes 2021-02-03](https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/165)
* Pull Requests
* https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/152 - Add functional requirements
* Topic Items
* 2/17 Milestone - Approve and merge UCR (https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/152)
* Discuss next steps for specification proposal
* Discuss [meeting with Credentials CG](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Feb/0062.html)

## Minutes

* Prior meeting notes merged

### Use Cases and Requirements

Approval of https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/152

- No objections to merge.
- Several approvals (Henry, Josh, Pavlik)
- All requested changes in the PR have been addressed / resolved

### Discuss next steps for specification proposal

How should we move forward?

Emmet:
Mathew moves to providing a second implementation. The current description with pseudocode is not a specification, but needs to be improved.

JB: Will also be able to contribute text

Feedback from members of the panel.

EP: Should look at integrating work from the interoperability panel (e.g. Data Grants / Data Receipts). Good to look at how these pieces work together. Propose to prioritize review across the board of these complementary items.

Pavlik: Should look at how it integrates with Interoper Panel with Access Grants.

Henry:
- I opened https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/labels/ACP
- How far do we want to go from WAC because WAC could do the same thing. Conceptually very similar https://github.com/solid/authentication-panel/pull/125
- Certain places where there is a difference (ACP vs. WAC)
- Support for DID
- https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/issues/147#issuecomment-743158893

To extend / change WAC, or make something else?

JB: Tim has provided editorial guidance that WAC should be maintained as it is today, and something different should be a different system

ET: ACP introduces a lot of differences to how WAC currently works - so created a new implementation (ACP)

HS: Realize there are other groups using WAC that may not want to change.

EP: Need to be sure we avoid infinite analysis. May not need to spend a lot of time with OWL people. ACP rules are pretty tight and bounded, probably don't need to use an OWL or RDF reasoner.

ET: Have avoided reasoning logic that could lead to performance issues at scale.

HS: How far do we get with WAC + inferencing (w. differnt types of inferencing)

ET: Proposing the use of UMA 2 and where might that come in, in terms of requesting permissions and consent

ET: UMA: [User Managed Access](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access)

EP: In regards to submitting WAC proposal to specification - should it be submitted directly to the solid/specification repository before going through the panel.

ET: +1 any authz draft should go through the panel

JB: +1 any authz draft should go through the panel

EP: +1 any authz draft should go through the panel

MB: +1 any authz draft should go through the panel