generated from coulomb/repo-seed
Remove external reference points so the intent stands on its own at the abstract, stable level: drop named identity/SSO systems, named PDP/policy products, named directory/enterprise systems, the named first-consumer project, and the external IAM-profile path. Keep all of flex-auth's own substance — purpose, responsibility boundary (stated as abstract roles: identity layer / authorization / enforcement points), design principles, concepts, API shape, standalone vs delegated mode, non-goals, early work. Relationships to other systems belong in interface contracts and the orchestration responsibility map, not in intent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
182 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
182 lines
6.8 KiB
Markdown
# Flex-Auth Intent
|
|
|
|
> This file captures **why this repository exists**, the **direction it is
|
|
> moving toward**, and the **kind of system it is meant to become**.
|
|
> It is intentionally **aspirational and stable**, not a description of
|
|
> current implementation.
|
|
|
|
## Intent
|
|
|
|
Flex-auth is a policy-as-code authorization registry and control plane for
|
|
organizations that want to grow from simple access rules into enterprise-grade
|
|
authorization without giving up clear ownership, local development ergonomics,
|
|
or inspectable policy decisions.
|
|
|
|
It is the **authorization layer** in the path from verified identity to
|
|
protected resources:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
verified identity claims
|
|
-> flex-auth policy-as-code and authorization registry
|
|
-> protected systems and their resources
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Flex-auth should run usefully on its own, and should also be able to delegate
|
|
to or coordinate established authorization engines — relationship/graph
|
|
engines, rule and attribute policy engines, and directory systems — without
|
|
binding its own model to any one of them.
|
|
|
|
## Why This Exists
|
|
|
|
Most organizations start with coarse roles, groups, and application-specific
|
|
conditionals. Over time they need richer policy:
|
|
|
|
- resource hierarchies and inherited access
|
|
- project/team/tenant boundaries
|
|
- relationship-based authorization
|
|
- attribute and context based rules
|
|
- emergency/break-glass controls
|
|
- policy tests and reviewable changes
|
|
- durable decision logs and explainability
|
|
- integration with identity, MFA, service accounts, and directory groups
|
|
|
|
Flex-auth should give those organizations a path that starts small and grows
|
|
cleanly instead of forcing an early leap into a large IAM platform or letting
|
|
authorization logic sprawl across applications.
|
|
|
|
## Responsibility Boundary
|
|
|
|
Flex-auth consumes **verified identity claims** as normative input and never
|
|
re-defines them. Identity proves who an actor is and how they were
|
|
authenticated; flex-auth decides what that actor is allowed to do.
|
|
|
|
### The Identity Layer Owns Identity
|
|
|
|
- Authentication, login, MFA, and token issuance and lifecycle.
|
|
- The canonical identity claim contract and required claims.
|
|
- Coarse roles, scopes, and assurance claims.
|
|
|
|
### Flex-Auth Owns Authorization
|
|
|
|
- Protected-system registration.
|
|
- Resource namespaces and resource hierarchy.
|
|
- Canonical action vocabulary.
|
|
- Policy-as-code packages, tests, versions, and rollout.
|
|
- Mapping enterprise groups, app roles, scopes, tenants, and assurance claims
|
|
into resource-specific authorization.
|
|
- Relationship facts and inherited access.
|
|
- PDP adapter coordination.
|
|
- Decision logging, explanations, and audit export.
|
|
|
|
### Protected Systems Own Enforcement
|
|
|
|
Applications remain policy enforcement points. They extract resource
|
|
metadata, call flex-auth for decisions, enforce allow/deny/redact results,
|
|
and emit local diagnostics. They do not own central policy administration.
|
|
|
|
## Design Principles
|
|
|
|
- Policy is code: versioned, reviewed, tested, and explainable.
|
|
- Identity is not authorization: identity claims are inputs, not final
|
|
decisions.
|
|
- Start standalone, scale outward: a local flex-auth deployment should be
|
|
useful before any external policy engine integration is available.
|
|
- Backend-neutral core: flex-auth has its own resource, action, request,
|
|
decision, and audit vocabulary.
|
|
- Pluggable PDPs: relationship, rule, and directory engines are adapters, not
|
|
hard dependencies.
|
|
- Fail visibly: denied, redacted, stale, partial, and uncertain decisions must
|
|
produce useful diagnostics.
|
|
- Grow into enterprise: the same model should support local dev, small teams,
|
|
and larger enterprise environments.
|
|
|
|
## First-Class Concepts
|
|
|
|
- Subject: human, service account, group, team, tenant, emergency principal.
|
|
- Resource: protected object registered by a system.
|
|
- Namespace: resource type and ownership boundary.
|
|
- Action: operation requested on a resource.
|
|
- Context: request, environment, assurance, workflow, or runtime attributes.
|
|
- Policy package: versioned policy-as-code bundle with tests and metadata.
|
|
- Relationship fact: subject-resource or resource-resource relation.
|
|
- Decision: allow, deny, redact, audit-only, or not-applicable with reason.
|
|
- Audit event: durable decision record with policy version and provenance.
|
|
|
|
## Initial API Shape
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
register_system(system_manifest)
|
|
register_resource(resource_manifest)
|
|
sync_relationships(relationship_manifest)
|
|
|
|
check(subject, action, resource, context) -> decision
|
|
batch_check(subject, action, resources, context) -> decisions
|
|
list_allowed(subject, action, resource_type, filters, context) -> resources
|
|
explain(decision_id) -> explanation
|
|
|
|
publish_policy_package(package)
|
|
test_policy_package(package, fixtures)
|
|
activate_policy_version(policy_id, version)
|
|
record_decision(decision)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Standalone Mode
|
|
|
|
Standalone flex-auth should provide:
|
|
|
|
- local resource registry
|
|
- local subject/group/team registry
|
|
- local relationship facts
|
|
- policy package validation
|
|
- deterministic check and batch-check APIs
|
|
- local decision log
|
|
- CLI and service mode
|
|
- test fixtures for representative identity claims
|
|
|
|
Standalone mode should be enough for development, smaller deployments, and
|
|
integration tests.
|
|
|
|
## Delegated Mode
|
|
|
|
Delegated mode should let flex-auth coordinate established systems without
|
|
adopting their models as its own:
|
|
|
|
- relationship/graph engines for relationship-heavy authorization
|
|
- rule and attribute policy engines for attribute/rule policies
|
|
- directory systems for group resolution
|
|
- a local directory plus policy-evaluation engine for self-contained
|
|
delegated setups
|
|
|
|
Flex-auth remains the stable control plane even when the backend changes.
|
|
|
|
## First Consumer Pattern
|
|
|
|
The first concrete consumer is a knowledge and document management pipeline:
|
|
|
|
- it registers knowledge bases, repositories, documents, sections, context
|
|
packages, workflow artifacts, and exports
|
|
- it sends policy checks before returning query/search/context results
|
|
- it can redact or drop results based on decisions
|
|
- flex-auth owns central policy administration and durable audit
|
|
|
|
This first consumer should shape flex-auth around real document and knowledge
|
|
pipelines without making the policy service consumer-specific.
|
|
|
|
## Non-Goals
|
|
|
|
- Flex-auth is not an identity provider.
|
|
- Flex-auth is not a replacement for an identity or SSO system.
|
|
- Flex-auth is not a mandatory dependency for every local development use case.
|
|
- Flex-auth should not force one PDP backend.
|
|
- Flex-auth should not hide policy complexity behind opaque admin toggles.
|
|
|
|
## Early Work
|
|
|
|
1. Define the resource/action/decision model.
|
|
2. Define policy package structure and test fixtures.
|
|
3. Implement standalone registry and check API.
|
|
4. Add a first protected-system resource manifest and policy adapter.
|
|
5. Evaluate a delegated directory-plus-policy backend.
|
|
6. Add relationship-engine and rule-engine adapter spikes.
|
|
7. Add identity and enterprise-directory integration examples.
|