Addressing Meeting 2010-05-12
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Notes from Addressing & Directories Workgroup
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: May 12, 2010
Time: 3:30pm-4:30pm
Attendees: Honora Burnett, Arien Malec, Sara Robinson, David Kibbe, Wes Rishel, John Moehrke, Karen Witting, Mark Stine, Chris Lomonico & Jackie Key
Actions from This Meeting
Notes
Agenda and Framing
· Who is an approved provider, and would like to look it up that way
· Belief that provider director could help enforce privacy & security
· IHE has been hard at work with a provider specification – going through committee approval and will be out for public comment this week or next
· Karen/John give an update
· Reformatting the charter and defining the goals/objectives
· Heat about the work IHE has done
· Wes will be doing policy work – look for a different WG lead
· Formatting rules have not been specified
IHE Provider Directory Specification
· LDap plus
o Schema to lay on top of LDAP
· IOS standard
· Supporting relationships between providers
o Providers are any of the following:
§ Individual person
§ Organization
§ Relationship isn’t hierarchical
§ Directed Acyclic Graph
· Brings in web services interfaces across organizational boundaries
· Intended for a global audience – US might have to add in regional specific things
· Won’t be released publically for a few weeks
§
Defining Goals/Objectives of the Group
Comment from Arien
1) Policy considerations about addressing/directories – stay out of that space but highlight things to think about
2) Think about standards – including IHE approach
3) Look at how given the existence of directories how the core things we’ve defined would use directories
Comment from Sara Robinson
· Not increasing scope of concrete implementation group
Comment from David Kibbe
· Any dependencies on directories service and backbone protocol/architecture for HISP->HISP NHIN Direct
· Where do the directories reside?
o In scope: externally facing directories and have a valuable address that is routable
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Not an advocate of that camp
· Scalability of the out of band approach
· Scenario for sending data to a physician in WI
· Keeping a directory up to date, and how would we know we’re really dealing with an organization that is keeping it up to date
· Technically feasible approach without a lot of time worrying about policy feasibility
· Supplementary or dependent relationship
· Data is only good when providers care about it
· Not our job to do policy
· Supplementary vs. dependent
Comment from John Moehrke
· Agreeing with the current flow
o Not a mandatory requirement for NHIN Direct to resolve
o Not a good idea to identify endpoints because they won’t go through the out of band expertise of making sure the receiver is ready to receive or wants to receive
o Scope of NHIN Direct – pick up the phone and all the clinic
o Other hand – are there good schemas for this? Then that isn’t bad work for us to accomplish
o Falls into a lower priority
Comment from Chris Lomonico
· Kantara should allow us to define that they are true endpoints
· Communication rules – good thing to have
Comment from Mark Stine
· How will these affect some of the core things we’re doing?
· Areas we want to make adjustments or add additional user stories to encompass provider directories
· Abstract model adjusted slightly?
Arien is going to reframe the issue
· Is there a compelling reason to take this work on?
· Don’t dispute the utility of this
· Votes for optional, shouldn’t be required, could be solved out of band
· Sarah Robinson: Shouldn’t take this on
Comment from David Kibbe
· Difficult to sell NHIN Direct if there isn’t a trusted entity that is in charge of this
· Recognize that this is an important issue
· Is there any value to having this be across the HISPs?
o Benefit to normalize those directory services? Is this the work that IHE has done?
· Value in saying that if this is chosen, then there is one way of doing it
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Multiple things called directories
o One is a facility that a HISP uses to understand how to reach another HISP
o End point – could determine the complete address of another endpoint to initiate a transition
· Want to avoid specifying how things work internally
· Need is compelling at the level of showing it as part of the vision and showing that the technology won’t be an obstacle
· Argue that having some activity on this is important
· Argue that the activity has to be in the same timeframe (doesn’t have to be in the same timeframe as the other deliverables)
· Charter:
o Show that integration of directory services with NHIN Direct addressing is feasible
o Desirable to recommend a technically feasible, standard way of doing it
Comment from John Moehrke, Karen Whiting, Mark Stine
· Don’t see that we need this right away
· Recognizing this work, but deferring it
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Ensure there is a user story that demonstrates the business value of this
· Facilitate a way for group members to comment on IHE when it is in public comment period
· We go give participants in NHIN Direct to come to consensus about an NHIN Direct comment
Comment from David Kibbe
· Most important workgroup
· Don’t want to miss the opportunity to win the endorsement & trust of the medical professional societies – not asking them to participate
· Don’t need to spend a lot of time on this
· We could put up a straw man proposal for a national directory and solicit the input from medical directory specialties
Comment from Arien Malec
· Technology proof statement
· Comments to IHE Work
· Recommendations of if you did it then here is how we could
· Policy issues and how that would work with medical societies
o Good thing
o NHIN WG or HITPC activity
· Two things that seem to add value
o 1) Comment back to IHE on the directory specification
o 2) Technology proof of concept for how to include directory look ups and NHIN Addressing
§ Simple as saying – in an IHE LDAP directory, here is where you put the address
· Wes & David will engage on the NHIN WG
· Stay out of (critically important, but not our problem)
o Medical societies commenting on IHE proposals
o Policy considerations for national provider directories and the role of the medical societies in that
§ HIT Policy Committee having a testimony would work
§ Challenge is that who is going to be handling the directory?
§ We need a resolution of this issue
· We could submit a request for provider directories to NHIN Exchange
· We need to give a level of support to our sponsors in ONC that we are not ignoring this problem, and that we will look at the technology issues
· Question about is the data up to date and where did it come from
o Recognize that they are important issues
o Hope that the policy committees will address that issue
· Arien will carry the issue of the Addressing/Directories WG to the NHIN Direct Policy Steering Committee
· Arien will take a pass at writing up the charter and post it
· WG will review charter
· David Kibbe will be WG lead
· Charter will include charge to make policy topics for consideration recommendations to the HITPC
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: May 12, 2010
Time: 3:30pm-4:30pm
Attendees: Honora Burnett, Arien Malec, Sara Robinson, David Kibbe, Wes Rishel, John Moehrke, Karen Witting, Mark Stine, Chris Lomonico & Jackie Key
Actions from This Meeting
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 1 |
5/12/10 |
Arien will carry the issue of the Addressing/Directories WG to the NHIN Direct Policy Steering Committee |
Open |
Arien |
5/14/10 |
| 2 |
5/12/10 |
Arien will take a pass at writing up the charter and post it to the Wiki |
Open |
Arien |
5/19/10 |
| 3 |
5/12/10 |
WG will review charter |
Open |
WG |
5/19/10 |
Decisions from this Meeting
| # |
Date |
Action |
| 1 |
5/12/10 |
David Kibbe will be WG lead |
| 2 |
5/12/10 |
Charter will include charge to make policy topics for consideration recommendations to the HITPC |
Notes
Agenda and Framing
· Who is an approved provider, and would like to look it up that way
· Belief that provider director could help enforce privacy & security
· IHE has been hard at work with a provider specification – going through committee approval and will be out for public comment this week or next
· Karen/John give an update
· Reformatting the charter and defining the goals/objectives
· Heat about the work IHE has done
· Wes will be doing policy work – look for a different WG lead
· Formatting rules have not been specified
IHE Provider Directory Specification
· LDap plus
o Schema to lay on top of LDAP
· IOS standard
· Supporting relationships between providers
o Providers are any of the following:
§ Individual person
§ Organization
§ Relationship isn’t hierarchical
§ Directed Acyclic Graph
· Brings in web services interfaces across organizational boundaries
· Intended for a global audience – US might have to add in regional specific things
· Won’t be released publically for a few weeks
§
Defining Goals/Objectives of the Group
Comment from Arien
1) Policy considerations about addressing/directories – stay out of that space but highlight things to think about
2) Think about standards – including IHE approach
3) Look at how given the existence of directories how the core things we’ve defined would use directories
Comment from Sara Robinson
· Not increasing scope of concrete implementation group
Comment from David Kibbe
· Any dependencies on directories service and backbone protocol/architecture for HISP->HISP NHIN Direct
· Where do the directories reside?
o In scope: externally facing directories and have a valuable address that is routable
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Not an advocate of that camp
· Scalability of the out of band approach
· Scenario for sending data to a physician in WI
· Keeping a directory up to date, and how would we know we’re really dealing with an organization that is keeping it up to date
· Technically feasible approach without a lot of time worrying about policy feasibility
· Supplementary or dependent relationship
· Data is only good when providers care about it
· Not our job to do policy
· Supplementary vs. dependent
Comment from John Moehrke
· Agreeing with the current flow
o Not a mandatory requirement for NHIN Direct to resolve
o Not a good idea to identify endpoints because they won’t go through the out of band expertise of making sure the receiver is ready to receive or wants to receive
o Scope of NHIN Direct – pick up the phone and all the clinic
o Other hand – are there good schemas for this? Then that isn’t bad work for us to accomplish
o Falls into a lower priority
Comment from Chris Lomonico
· Kantara should allow us to define that they are true endpoints
· Communication rules – good thing to have
Comment from Mark Stine
· How will these affect some of the core things we’re doing?
· Areas we want to make adjustments or add additional user stories to encompass provider directories
· Abstract model adjusted slightly?
Arien is going to reframe the issue
· Is there a compelling reason to take this work on?
· Don’t dispute the utility of this
· Votes for optional, shouldn’t be required, could be solved out of band
· Sarah Robinson: Shouldn’t take this on
Comment from David Kibbe
· Difficult to sell NHIN Direct if there isn’t a trusted entity that is in charge of this
· Recognize that this is an important issue
· Is there any value to having this be across the HISPs?
o Benefit to normalize those directory services? Is this the work that IHE has done?
· Value in saying that if this is chosen, then there is one way of doing it
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Multiple things called directories
o One is a facility that a HISP uses to understand how to reach another HISP
o End point – could determine the complete address of another endpoint to initiate a transition
· Want to avoid specifying how things work internally
· Need is compelling at the level of showing it as part of the vision and showing that the technology won’t be an obstacle
· Argue that having some activity on this is important
· Argue that the activity has to be in the same timeframe (doesn’t have to be in the same timeframe as the other deliverables)
· Charter:
o Show that integration of directory services with NHIN Direct addressing is feasible
o Desirable to recommend a technically feasible, standard way of doing it
Comment from John Moehrke, Karen Whiting, Mark Stine
· Don’t see that we need this right away
· Recognizing this work, but deferring it
Comment from Wes Rishel
· Ensure there is a user story that demonstrates the business value of this
· Facilitate a way for group members to comment on IHE when it is in public comment period
· We go give participants in NHIN Direct to come to consensus about an NHIN Direct comment
Comment from David Kibbe
· Most important workgroup
· Don’t want to miss the opportunity to win the endorsement & trust of the medical professional societies – not asking them to participate
· Don’t need to spend a lot of time on this
· We could put up a straw man proposal for a national directory and solicit the input from medical directory specialties
Comment from Arien Malec
· Technology proof statement
· Comments to IHE Work
· Recommendations of if you did it then here is how we could
· Policy issues and how that would work with medical societies
o Good thing
o NHIN WG or HITPC activity
· Two things that seem to add value
o 1) Comment back to IHE on the directory specification
o 2) Technology proof of concept for how to include directory look ups and NHIN Addressing
§ Simple as saying – in an IHE LDAP directory, here is where you put the address
· Wes & David will engage on the NHIN WG
· Stay out of (critically important, but not our problem)
o Medical societies commenting on IHE proposals
o Policy considerations for national provider directories and the role of the medical societies in that
§ HIT Policy Committee having a testimony would work
§ Challenge is that who is going to be handling the directory?
§ We need a resolution of this issue
· We could submit a request for provider directories to NHIN Exchange
· We need to give a level of support to our sponsors in ONC that we are not ignoring this problem, and that we will look at the technology issues
· Question about is the data up to date and where did it come from
o Recognize that they are important issues
o Hope that the policy committees will address that issue
· Arien will carry the issue of the Addressing/Directories WG to the NHIN Direct Policy Steering Committee
· Arien will take a pass at writing up the charter and post it
· WG will review charter
· David Kibbe will be WG lead
· Charter will include charge to make policy topics for consideration recommendations to the HITPC