Zanzibar doubts about Tuple + Check Api. (authzed/spicedb)

We currently have a home grown authz system in production that uses opa/rego policy engine as core for decision making(close to what netflix done). We been looking at Zanzibar rebac model to replace our opa/policy based decision engine, and AuthZed got our attention. Further looking at AuthZed, we like the idea of defining a schema of "resource + subject" types and their relations (like OOP model). We like the simplicity of using a social-graph between resource & subject to answer questions. But the more we dig-in and think about real usage patterns, we get more questions and missing clarity in some aspects. I put down those thoughts below, hope it's not confusing...

[Doubts/Questions]

1. [tuple-data] resource data/metadata must be continuously added into the authz-system in the form of tuple data.
   • e.g. doc{org,owner} must be added as tuple to populate the relation in the decision-graph. assume, i'm a CMS system, am i expected to insert(or update) the authz-engine(tuple) for for every single doc created in my cms system for lifetime?.
   • resource-owning applications are kept in hook(responsible) for continuous keep-it-current updates.
   • how about old/stale relation-data(tuples) - authz-engine don't know they are stale or not...app's burnded to tidy it?.
2. [check-api] - autzh check is answered by graph walking mechanism - [resource--to-->subject] traverse path.
   • these is no dynamic mixture/nature in decision making - like rego-rule-script to decide based on json payload.
   • how to do dynamic decision based on json payload?

1. You're correct about the application being responsible for the authorization data it "owns". If you intend to have a unique role/relationship for each document in your system, then you do need to write/delete those relationships as the referenced resources (or the roles on them, more likely) change, but if you are using an RBAC-like design for your schema, you'd have to apply these role changes anyway; you'd just apply them to SpiceDB, instead of to your database. Likewise, if you have a relationship between say, a document and its parent organization, you do have to write/delete those as well, but that should only occur when the document is created or deleted.

   In practice, unless you intend to keep the relationships in both your database and in SpiceDB (which some users do), you'll generally only have to write them to one or the other. If you do intend to apply them to both, you can either just perform the updates to both at the same time, or use an outbox-like pattern to synchronize behind the scenes.

   Having to be proactive in your applications about storing data in a centralized system is necessary for data consistency. The alternative is federated systems that reach into other services. Federated systems come with the trade-offs of being eventually consistent and can also suffer from priority inversion. I presented on the centralized vs federate trade-offs in a bit of depth and other design aspects of authorization systems in my presentation on the cloud native authorization landscape.

2. Caveats are a new feature in SpiceDB that enable dynamic policy to be enforced on the relationship graph. Caveats are defined using Google's Common Expression Language, which a language used for policy in other cloud-native projects like Kubernetes. You can also use caveats to make relationships that eventually expire, if you want to take some of book-keeping out of your app code.