Title


Pub-Sub Direct Implementation using HISPs and Desktop STA

Status of this Specification


This specification is in Draft state.

IPR Statement


By contributing to this specification, all contributors warrant that all applicable patient or other intellectual policy rights have been disclosed and that any of which contributors are aware of will be disclosed in accordance with the NHIN Direct project IPR Policy.

The Specification uses proprietary elements which are IPR protected.

Abstract


Pub-Sub model using HISPs and RFC-1218 Naming Structure, X.509v3 certificates compatible with Federal PKI.

Introduction


A Desktop pub-sub connection is created between two nodes A1-B1, Certificate and Provider Directory information is obtained from local HISP X.500/LDAP State X.500/LDAP, National X.500/LDAP, and other country X.500/LDAP

Purpose

NwHIN pub/sub DIRECT architecture using desktop STA, Internet MTA, S/MIME, HISPs, X.500/LDAP, DNS, X.509v3, Federal PKI, logical "AND" Gate (1898 US patent 613809)

Requirements


The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."

Synopsis


Pub/Sub Node communicates to Pub/Sub Node via STA, sources destination endpoints and email address from Provider Directory Use Case 1 and 2 S&I Framework, userCertificate;binary

Section


Subsection


Security Considerations


Consensus Secure Transport Agents to Mail Transport Agents

Examples


pahisp flow.jpg

This section is non-normative.


Authors

Peter Bachman
Stephen Beller

References


Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, RFC 2119

Copyright


By contributing to this specification, all contributors agree to license contributions according to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License which is incorporated into this document by reference.