Meeting Notes - 2026-07-16

Attendees

• Alex Olivier
• Alex Babeanu
• Karl McGuinness
• Omri Gazitt
• Atul Tulshibagwale
• Vladi Berger
• John Jiang
• Edmund Jay
• Dave Hyland
• Nate Yocom

Agenda

• (Chairs) New draft proposal process
• (AlexO) Final points on COAZ + MCP Binding before Draft 2 (https://github.com/openid/authzen/pull/541)
• (AlexB) Obligations
• (Karl) ARAP/AROP Proposals

Notes

Draft Proposal Process

1. Draft your proposal (Google Docs prefered) and contact co-chairs who will add to the OpenID WG AuthZEN Google Drive
2. Share with WG via mailing list
3. Co-chair's will make time on WG call agenda to present the proposal
4. WG will give feedback
5. If WG agrees to go forward, there will be a vote on the mailing list
6. Should the vote passed, then the draft can be moved to openid/authzen repo (co-chairs can assist)

Questions:

• Atul: Slack vs mailing list?
• Karl: What is this process once it is in the WG?
• Omri: Notice a week in advance and have vote on call avoid mailing list
• Karl: When a WG draft gets adopted what are the minimal roles/responsibilties required for moving it forward as a distinct thread.

Wrapping up COAZ

1. Subject trust anchor — Customer-service-bot case: agent acts for a user who isn't in the token. Current draft: subject.id MUST come from the token; the customer rides as context/resource attributes. Should we lossen to "at least one subject field from the token"?
   • The agent idenity is going to be somewhere in the AuthZEN call.
   • John: In OAuth, the subject should be the user and the agent would be the owner.
   • Omri: Easier to say the subject.id MUST come from the token from a validation perspective. Could be the act claim (chain of subjects). subject.id SHOULD be the token.sub.
   • Atul: Lossen it to 'something' must come from the token.
   • Karl: Most of the mapping logic is in the app layer before getting down to the MCP layer
   • Atul: What we don't have is a standardised mapping of the token to the SARC call.
   • Omri: Proposed default is the sub claim in the token and have language which says if the subject has been overriden, the ID SHOULD come from a feild in the token.
   • Vladi - what about different/multiple tokens - do you have lots of mapping logic. CEL/tenaries.
   • Karl - need a domain mapping layer to pick out/parse tokens. To address later in a further revision of the COAZ-MCP binding of the framework.
2. Per-tool opt-out?
   • Don't allow - remove from spec

Process point - what do number/version these drafts as?

• Both land as Draft 1 and deprecate the existing MCP. Also update the landing page.

Obligations

https://openid.github.io/authzen/authzen-obligations-profile-1_0.html

• Have a focused session week after next when Alex B back.

ARAP PR/Issues

• Search APIs provide no way to discover requestable resources https://github.com/openid/authzen/issues/555
• Add AuthZEN Access Request OAuth Profile (AROP) https://github.com/openid/authzen/pull/531
• scope evaluation_id-only denial binding to shared-state deployments https://github.com/openid/authzen/pull/532
• ARAP does too many things https://github.com/openid/authzen/issues/520

Karl: being doing work on the OAuth layer to support async which then can call ARAP.

Next week: ARAP and AROP week