So I understand roles vs permissions. I also understand roles vs claims. In both cases claims and permissions are granular, usually per feature or business operation such as AddPerson permission. I've been learning about claims based authorization and the examples that show how it's "better" and it's usually comparing it against role based authorization. Obviously it is better because that's the wrong way to use roles as you should be using permissions as a mapping between operations and roles.
What is the distinction between claims based and permission based authorization? (note permissions are different from roles, so this is not a duplicate of the Role vs Claim question)
In both it seems you have granular permissions/claims. So far the concrete examples I've seen of claims are really close to what I would conceptualize as permissions. An example I see with claims is the Add/Person claim, and certainly I would have similar with a permission as a AddPerson permission. I find usually I have a business layer with single entry points for things like this and every feature/entry point requires a permission. In both cases the rational for permissions/claims is that over time a particular identity or role might change in terms of what things it is allowed to do. And if you've hardcoded checks for that role within your application, you have to make code changes to accommodate, but if you've used claims/permissions then it is simply an administrative matter of changing what the role is associated with. So both seem to carry the same benefits.
I ask this question not to sound like I'm challenging the idea of claims. Instead I know I will probably have a better concept of claims if I understood more clearly what makes them stand apart from permissions.