Addressing Workgroup Notes 04162010
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Notes from 'Addressing' Workgroup
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 16, 2010
Time: 1pm-2pm
Attendees: Honora Burnett, Arien Malec, John Moehrke, Karen Witting, Mark Stine, Jeff Fisher, Tim Denis, Dan Russler & Brett Peterson
Actions
Notes
Actions from last meeting:
· Move example sections off to a separate example section of and just having one normative section describing what a health internet address looks like
· Review revised document and vote on whether this can be moved to the larger implementation group
Agenda and Framing
· Review of last week’s action items
· Discussion
· Call per consensus as a workgroup
Discussion:
· The addressing specification has been updated
· All of the examples have been moved off to another section
· Simple, corresponds to an example that we had on the last group
· Wes: Concerns with semantics of SCN
· Last line in health domain description … brings up DNS
· Likely DNS will be the directory used, but when something is expressed abstractly, we should take off the example
· (Old sentence) Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST maintain directory entries for the Health Domain Name, corresponding to the rules established for concrete implementations. For example, for a REST implementation, organizations will include either A or CNAME DNS RRs, for an SMTP-based implementation, the organization will maintain at least one MX DNS RR.
o Amend Health Domain Name sentence (above) read:
§ Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST maintain entries for the Health Domain Name, corresponding to rules established for concrete either or organization
o Ensure REST/IHE and SMTP concrete implementation Straw Cases to use health information exchange mapping
o Ensure that the Health Endpoint Name is responsible for routing the end the transaction is received to the endpoint
· Arien will modify straw cases for concrete implementation moving forward
· Will do a call for consensus via email
· Make modifications ASAP and either get provisional acceptance for consensus
· Send email with updates and then move for call for consensus for full group
· Put a version number if it isn’t already on there
· Conversations with Brian, let’s post everything that is emailed for community awareness
Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 16, 2010
Time: 1pm-2pm
Attendees: Honora Burnett, Arien Malec, John Moehrke, Karen Witting, Mark Stine, Jeff Fisher, Tim Denis, Dan Russler & Brett Peterson
Actions
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 6 |
4/16/10 |
Amend Health Domain Name sentence read: Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST maintain directory NHIN Direct HISP Address Directory entries for the Health Domain Name, as specified by the Abstract Model , and corresponding to the rules established for concrete implementations. For example, for a REST implementation, organizations will include implementations of the Abstract Model. Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST ensure that transactions are available for Health Endpoint Names, either A through proprietary means or CNAME DNS RRs, for an SMTP-based implementation, the following the Destination role transactions of the Abstract Model. Organizations may take on the HISP role or assign this function to another organization will maintain at least one MX DNS RR. playing the HISP role. |
Closed |
Arien |
4/20/10 |
| 7 |
4/16/10 |
Ensure REST/IHE and SMTP concrete implementation Straw Cases to use health information exchange mapping |
Open |
Arien |
4/20/10 |
| 8 |
4/16/10 |
Ensure that the Health Endpoint Name is responsible for routing the end the transaction is received to the endpoint |
Closed |
Arien |
4/20/10 |
| 9 |
4/16/10 |
Insert Version Number |
Closed |
Arien |
4/20/10 |
| 10 |
4/16/10 |
Workgroup will vote for consensus |
Open |
Arien |
4/20/10 |
Notes
Actions from last meeting:
· Move example sections off to a separate example section of and just having one normative section describing what a health internet address looks like
· Review revised document and vote on whether this can be moved to the larger implementation group
Agenda and Framing
· Review of last week’s action items
· Discussion
· Call per consensus as a workgroup
Discussion:
· The addressing specification has been updated
· All of the examples have been moved off to another section
· Simple, corresponds to an example that we had on the last group
· Wes: Concerns with semantics of SCN
· Last line in health domain description … brings up DNS
· Likely DNS will be the directory used, but when something is expressed abstractly, we should take off the example
· (Old sentence) Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST maintain directory entries for the Health Domain Name, corresponding to the rules established for concrete implementations. For example, for a REST implementation, organizations will include either A or CNAME DNS RRs, for an SMTP-based implementation, the organization will maintain at least one MX DNS RR.
o Amend Health Domain Name sentence (above) read:
§ Organizations that manage Health Domain Names MUST maintain entries for the Health Domain Name, corresponding to rules established for concrete either or organization
o Ensure REST/IHE and SMTP concrete implementation Straw Cases to use health information exchange mapping
o Ensure that the Health Endpoint Name is responsible for routing the end the transaction is received to the endpoint
· Arien will modify straw cases for concrete implementation moving forward
· Will do a call for consensus via email
· Make modifications ASAP and either get provisional acceptance for consensus
· Send email with updates and then move for call for consensus for full group
· Put a version number if it isn’t already on there
· Conversations with Brian, let’s post everything that is emailed for community awareness