October 29, 2013 Security WG Conference Call
Attendees
| Member Name | Present | Member Name | Present | Member Name | Present | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Davis Security Co-chair | x | John Moehrke Security Co-chair | x | Trish Williams Security Co-chair | . | ||
| Bernd Blobel, Security Co-chair | . | . | |||||
| Johnathan Coleman | x | Kathleen Connor | x | Duane DeCouteau | |||
| Reed Gelzer | Suzanne Gonzales-Webb CBCC Co-chair | Brian Handspicker | |||||
| Muhammed Jafari | x | Don Jorgenson | Diana Proud-Madruga | x | |||
| Harry Rhodes | Ioana Singureanu | x | David Staggs | ||||
| Richard Thoreson CBCC Co-chair | Tony Weida | x | Scott Weinstein | ||||
| . | . | . |
Agenda
- (05 min) Roll Call, Approve Minutes & Accept Agenda
- (15 min) November_2013_Harmonization_Proposals Discuss initial November Harmonization
- (10min) NIB for SOA SLS
- (15 min) Ballot Reconciliation HCS - DS4P
- (10 min) Other Business LOINC Clinical Document Ontology security related comments; IHE CPP
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes from October 15
November_2013_Harmonization_Proposals Discuss initial November Harmonization - Kathleen Initial proposal accepted except for concern with definition for confidentiality
NIB for SOA SLS we will be submitted the NIB for SOA SLS (due on Sunday, October 29 2013)
NIB for recirculation ballot for DS4P (unknown)
- Ioana will confirm with Don Lloyd to confirm if needed
- Ioana will submit if needed prior to Sunday, October 29, 2013)
Ballot Reconciliation DS4P Updated ballot reconciliation sheets in preparation for a last vote: http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/security/frs/?action=FrsReleaseBrowse&frs_package_id=229
HL7_IG_DS4P_R1_N1_2013SEP_amalgamated.xls
remaining comments / John Moehrke (additional text also from e-mail string
- comment 40 – (Ioana) I'm not sure what additional editing you were thinking of on item#40 but I added a note in the disposition comment and I can use your input about further addressing this Affirmative-Suggestion but does not require retaking a vote.
- (John) I thought that we had agreed to do a summary of the requirements that the transport needs to support in an abstract way. This summary at the top of both transports so that the reader understands. If so, then this is all that #40 is asking for.
- comment 40 – (John) I thought that you were going to do something like this? That is define the needs of segmentation in abstract terms first, then show technology specific implementation (ala SAIF).
- comment 9 – (John) Note I wanted “Content Profile” changed to “Transport Profile”. Your disposition as you also dropping the word “Exchange”. I think that the word exchange is still appropriate to the XDR transport as distinct from the Direct transport. So don’t remove the ‘Exchange’
- comment 9 – (John) my comment was on using the term ‘content profile’ to describe the ‘transport profiles’. Yet your disposition is “Not persuasive” with the rational describing something to do with XDS metadata. I think you have marked the wrong item with the wrong disposition and rational.
- comment 8 – (John) I thought that you were going to include the ‘introduction’ in all three text? This is my suggestion in #8, yet you indicate ‘not persuasive’. (Note you did accept #27, and agreed to #33)
- comment 12 & #28 – (John) Please review again. IHE ITI has released the updated Volume 3, and the title of the section has been changed as I indicated. This is now the ONLY version of Volume 3 that is published, and thus the DS4P text should be referring to the proper IHE normative text. This change is simple and non-controversial. Please reconsider.
- comment 19 – (John) I believe you still need to do some editing. I understand your “Disposition Comment”, but the text I read did say that DS4P was “extending” the metadata for author telecom. I have no problem with it emphasizing the use. Just don’t call it ‘extending’. This minor change is all I asked for.
– (John) I agree with the disposition of all my other comments (inclusive of negatives)
(Ioana)
- John, I added explicit references to the transactions that are using the XDS Metadata and would be subject to the constraints specified in the Exchange profile (item#7/row10 of the ballot spreadsheet). Please review the text below and let me know if this explicit as to the intended use of the privacy annotations and constraints proposed for the XDS Metadata as specified in the DS4P Exchange Profile:
- Item #7/ Row 10:
XDR is not the only Exchange-related transport is scope. The DS4P requires other integration profiles. Furthermore this is a US-realm IG. ** The proposed rewording is "Exchange Transport Profile" and the intro will clarify the "profiling refers to constraints applied to the XDS Metadata used by any Exchange transaction based on IHE XDS, IHE XDR, etc."
- The XDS metadata constraints applies to ITI-18 (Registry Stored Query), ITI-42 (Register Document Set - b), ITI-41 (Provide and Register Document Set - b), and ITI-43 (Retrieve Document Set). These transactions support the "push" and "pull" document exchange modes required by the DS4P use cases.
- Push (IHE IT XDR) : ITI-41 (Provide and Register Document Set - b) - Pull (IHE IT XDS, XCA): ITI-18 (Registry Stored Query), ITI-42 (Register Document Set - b), ITI-43 (Retrieve Document Set)
