---
# System prepended metadata

title: 2022-11-21 Solid Interoperability

---

# 2022-11-21 Solid Interoperability

* Time: 15:00UTC
* Link: https://meet.jit.si/solid-data-interoperability

## Present

* elf Pavlik
* Wouter Termont
* Laurens Debackere
* Justin Bingham

### Regrets

*

## Agenda

* New meetings schedule
* Open PRs
* Roadmap
  * Authorization flow
  * Get WAC on board
  * Separate into smaller specs
  * Cleanup smaller issues

## Minutes

### New meetings schedule

eP: bi-weekly on Mondays at 15:00UTC

### Open PRs

Overview: https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/pulls

#### [#253 Add authz flow diagram for social agent sharing access](https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/pull/253)

* eP: I'm concerned about creating access need in the app. Can we just pass IRI of the resource to AA?
* WT: Would AA generate the access need?
* eP: I think we don't need an access need here, it would be needed if Bob wants to request access from Alice. Here Alice initiates the flow.
* WT: Let's say Alice wants to share a Project with Bob, specifically title and description and only one item. How you describe it to authorization agent. 
* eP: AA should be able to show tasks based on shape tree reference. 
* WT: The app would have better UI to select exactly what user wants to share.
* eP: I agree we can have two options to pass just IRI or create an access need in the app.

ACTION: Pavlik to merge and create follow up issue

#### [Access Needs for Public Resources #254](https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/pull/254)

* LD: I recall that idea of public access modes wasn't fitting that well.
* ...: We were looking into fitting it into dedicated set of registries.

ACTION: To rething it for next meeting.

* WT: Whan talking with people working on type indexes. I was thinking about introducing a Public Agent and giving it all the data that would be public. Also dedicated registry would be an option.
* LD: If you stumble across such pod you would need a way to discover those public resources.
* WT: I mentioned that AA could sync the data granted to public agent with type indexes.
* eP: Public Agent Registration would act like Public Type Index.
* WT: Wouldn't it diverge from how other agent registrations work?
* eP: I think it will work exactly the same Agent Registration -> Access Grant -> Data Grants
* LD: I don't think we should aim to keep type indexes alive any longer than needed.
* eP: I agree, we just need to provide all the equivalent functionality.

### Roadmap

#### Authorization Flow

* eP: I'm aware about two diverging implementations, due to spec currently not including details.
* ...: I implemented flow using simple redirect to AA with `client_id`
* ...: AFAIK Digita implemented flow following [OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9126) - https://docs.use.id/docs/an-overview-of-the-useid-authorization-endpoints
* WT: We don't follow PAR but have something very similar. Our clients create request in the AA endpoint, and once user approves in app or via email (given no AA at this moment).
* eP: On use.id diagram you have separate client front-end and client back-end, is it just an implementation detail.
* WT: WAC lacks client identification so we started by having all our clients having a backend, which does the calls to our API.

ACTION: Pavlik to create issue proposing reconciliation of both approaches, possibly PAR based

* WT: IMO simple redirect can be more intuitive
* LD: In theory AA could have different methods supported. For example PAR endpoint, also extend it to what Inrupt is implementing with access requests and access grants.
* eP: I think it's based on VC HTTP API
* LD: I don't think there has been much movement from Inrput. Aaron was planning to write down a proposal.

#### Invite Aaron to align specs

* LD: Implementation only uses ACP rule just contains the type of the VC

#### Get WAC on board

* WT: Since WAC does not support discrimination based on the client, it's practically impossible to use SAI with it; or is that different in anyone's opinion?
* ...: [WAC#81](https://github.com/solid/web-access-control-spec/issues/81) has been open for over a year, but it seems no one will move untill there is some implementation. 
* ...: I could try to open a PR to get it into CSS.
* eP: ???