Hi folks, Thank you all for the thoughtful feedback on the RFC [1] and the draft PR [2]. Based on the discussion so far, I think we’re in a good position to move forward with this refactoring.
As originally intended, the draft PR was created solely to support the RFC review and to help visualize the proposed changes, rather than as something to merge directly. I’ll start preparing the actual PRs following the “Implementation and Migration Plan” outlined in the RFC. I’ll work with Grace on the parallelizable phases and will begin opening PRs accordingly. [1] RFC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OaiQG_C4-yUe0ihaDBxtw_mEcOOzUBnWPazzVbjQi5U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.dyow25dt9w1 [2] Draft PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3681 On 2026/02/11 01:13:36 Dmitri Bourlatchkov wrote: > Hi Sung, > > I added a few rather random comments to the PR... How would you like to > proceed? Are we still collecting comments on the doc at this stage? > > Do you think code work / reviews can begin for real? > > Thanks, > Dmitri. > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 1:23 PM Michael Collado <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Left some comments. Overall, I'm in favor of decoupling the authn entity > > resolution from the authorization process. > > > > Mike > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 4:29 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Sung, > > > > > > I went through the doc and left a few minor comments. Overall, it feels > > > like the right direction for the Authorizer refactoring. > > > > > > Thanks for diligent backward compatibility considerations! > > > > > > I'll check the PR out next week (hopefully on Mon). > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:20 PM Sung Yun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > I’ve put together an updated RFC[1] on refactoring the > > > > PolarisAuthorizer SPI and would appreciate community review and > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > The RFC builds on the recent community sprint discussion[2] and pivots > > > > slightly from the previous RFC[3] to propose an incremental path to > > > > better support external PDP-backed authorizers, while keeping existing > > > > RBAC behavior and resolver semantics intact. It also outlines a > > > > multi-phase implementation plan and calls out a few longer-term > > > > questions around evolving the SPI from here. > > > > > > > > I'm looking forward to your feedback! > > > > > > > > Once it is reviewed and if there is support for this RFC in the > > > > mailing list, I'd like to proceed to break up the proposal into > > > > individual PRs corresponding to each implementation phase and start > > > > contributing incremental changes. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sung > > > > > > > > [1] RFC: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OaiQG_C4-yUe0ihaDBxtw_mEcOOzUBnWPazzVbjQi5U/edit?tab=t.0 > > > > [2] Community Sprint Notes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUg4HnUGDN0JKMr0JWQTaKkgzSXENHZ4VMuyRfJ9oTQ/edit?tab=t.lzwxdgyu5e82#heading=h.jax6biqfrx3x > > > > [3] Previous RFC (Withdrawn): > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vV4p35feUqrEuG4ciZ2ccPJTli1tR4c9YD4M_2Bi0Wc/edit?tab=t.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dmitri Bourlatchkov > Senior Staff Software Engineer, Dremio > Dremio.com > <https://www.dremio.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature&utm_term=na&utm_content=email-signature&utm_campaign=email-signature> > / > Follow Us on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/dremio> / Get > Started <https://www.dremio.com/get-started/> > > > The Agentic Lakehouse > The only lakehouse built for agents, managed by agents >
