Documentation and Testing Meeting 2011-01-05
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Documentation & Testing WG Meeting
Jan. 5, 2011 – 2:00pm EST
No roll call
Janet
· Start looking down documents we already have
· XDR/XPM Direct
· Date on homepage says 1/12, updated from comments, it's the correct date
· Deployment Model Document - RI had several good comments, not ready, needs consensus
· Next step is to e-mail John
· Take changes back to people with objections OR bring to entire group
· No volunteers needed at this point
Arien
· Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport - IETF has a notion of an applicability statement and this fits with this document
Most readers disapproved on this document - not ready for outside review
Arien
· better decision could have been for us to tell Standards committee that we weren't ready, process underscored why that was the wrong decision, wound up in a decent place with relatively good comments
Specs were confusing
Arien
· Objection to being able to reject transactions was a policy issue rather than tech issue
· TLS/SMTP is tech. misunderstanding
· XDR, S/MIME relationships need clarification
Standards committee meeting before last group was charged with reviewing the spec from security standpoint
Didn't seem like a time sensitive issue, but it came about because nobody pushed back when it looked like the group was ready
(?)
· Felt ambushed, there was a calendar that they weren't ready for
Arien
· gave Dixie the document on Friday, spoke with her on Monday -- her team had already reviewed the old document
Carol has policy concerns
Walter Suarez wasn't able to participate in the process
What effect does this feedback have on the specs?
Arien
· take this feedback to adjust our process, when we have a consensus approved deliverable and implementation experience we'll go back to standards committee to see if they recommend it to ONC
Is there a need to officially say (outside the blog) what it means to be Direct compliant?
Arien
· there should be a consensus approved statement about what that means
· Take blog post as a starting point, send to this group and implementation geographies group
· Combination of EHR and HISP is Direct compliant
Testing Guides
Michele started looking at this, there have been various owners, Arien is interested in taking this to the final stage, John did a good job and Arien supplemented with end-to-end conformance tests that represent a good portion of things that could go wrong -- Passed it onto RI group. Is there anything required to make this more formal? Automation is key - is there an organization that would volunteer?
John put this on his queue to review, this should stay in draft form longer than usual
Arien
· testing done Friday, next week will ask Impl. Geo. Group to review
Rules/Lessons learned should be codified
Arien
· S&I Framework process follows the overall framework of the W3C process, expected launch of the material on Friday. Proposes that Direct be folded into S&I.
Wasting time/energy debating one process that will be folded into another
Arien will send S&I process document to group for review before Friday
Another plea from communications WG to purge references to NHIN
Use of acronym NHIN violates trademark, use NWHIN for now, although it has not been formalized
Jan. 5, 2011 – 2:00pm EST
No roll call
Janet
· Start looking down documents we already have
· XDR/XPM Direct
· Date on homepage says 1/12, updated from comments, it's the correct date
· Deployment Model Document - RI had several good comments, not ready, needs consensus
· Next step is to e-mail John
· Take changes back to people with objections OR bring to entire group
· No volunteers needed at this point
Arien
· Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport - IETF has a notion of an applicability statement and this fits with this document
Most readers disapproved on this document - not ready for outside review
Arien
· better decision could have been for us to tell Standards committee that we weren't ready, process underscored why that was the wrong decision, wound up in a decent place with relatively good comments
Specs were confusing
Arien
· Objection to being able to reject transactions was a policy issue rather than tech issue
· TLS/SMTP is tech. misunderstanding
· XDR, S/MIME relationships need clarification
Standards committee meeting before last group was charged with reviewing the spec from security standpoint
Didn't seem like a time sensitive issue, but it came about because nobody pushed back when it looked like the group was ready
(?)
· Felt ambushed, there was a calendar that they weren't ready for
Arien
· gave Dixie the document on Friday, spoke with her on Monday -- her team had already reviewed the old document
Carol has policy concerns
Walter Suarez wasn't able to participate in the process
What effect does this feedback have on the specs?
Arien
· take this feedback to adjust our process, when we have a consensus approved deliverable and implementation experience we'll go back to standards committee to see if they recommend it to ONC
Is there a need to officially say (outside the blog) what it means to be Direct compliant?
Arien
· there should be a consensus approved statement about what that means
· Take blog post as a starting point, send to this group and implementation geographies group
· Combination of EHR and HISP is Direct compliant
Testing Guides
Michele started looking at this, there have been various owners, Arien is interested in taking this to the final stage, John did a good job and Arien supplemented with end-to-end conformance tests that represent a good portion of things that could go wrong -- Passed it onto RI group. Is there anything required to make this more formal? Automation is key - is there an organization that would volunteer?
John put this on his queue to review, this should stay in draft form longer than usual
Arien
· testing done Friday, next week will ask Impl. Geo. Group to review
Rules/Lessons learned should be codified
Arien
· S&I Framework process follows the overall framework of the W3C process, expected launch of the material on Friday. Proposes that Direct be folded into S&I.
Wasting time/energy debating one process that will be folded into another
Arien will send S&I process document to group for review before Friday
Another plea from communications WG to purge references to NHIN
Use of acronym NHIN violates trademark, use NWHIN for now, although it has not been formalized