Use of json for policy in authz without a protobuf alternative is obtuse

[haussli]

Use of json for policy in authz without a protobuf alternative is obtuse. Why use json at all? And, why not offer a native protobuf alternative?

Use of JSON seems inconsistent and unnecessary. If the server wishes to use JSON internally, that is its prerogative, but should not be part of the API, or the user should have the option of using either.

My suggestion is that at the very least, a native protobuf version should be supported. This is not my call though; @tomek-US probably needs to decide this.

This is a split of issues/99; #99 (comment)

[morrowc]

Is it the case that we want to support 2 possible policy languages (json/proto) or to support 1, but have 'many' input options (with a proto -> json conversion cleanly supported in tooling)?

(at some point I thought: "proto3 text format is json" - though I admit to always looking at json with 'skepticism'...)

[haussli]

IMHO, support 1 format - protobuf. json inside protobuf seems unnecessarily kinky. But, I do not think this is my decision and there is clearly some precedence here with the origin of authz.