You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

Alix Goss

Tim Young

Patrick Murta

Rick Geimer

Karl Davis

Alex Kontur

 

In-person opportunities (HL7 & HIMSS)

  • Murta – attending both, willing to find an hour
  • Geimer – at HL7, likely at HIMSS; may be easiest to meet at breakfast/lunch
  • Tim Young – attending HIMSS
  • Karl Davis – still TBD

 

Will cancel regular Tiger Team meetings scheduled during HL7/HIMSS

 

Use Cases

  • Murta – no additional use cases available for the Directory Tiger Team to review

 

Use Case – Versioning

  • In-scope
    • Alix – interesting that scope calls out both payers & plans
  • Primary actors
    • 2 – endpoint directory
      • Alex – language suggests the directory is maintained by a specific payer/provider system
        • Murta – supposed to be a neutral, third-party directory
  • Post conditions
    • 4 – “in the event of an error…”
      • Geimer – common server errors may not provide very specific information/details about the error
      • Karl – seems more like an aspirational goal; mature endpoints are more likely to do a better job at error handling
  • Requirements & Main Success Scenario
    • Alex – language about the scenario never uses the word “version”
    • Geimer – responder is responsible for updating the directory as new endpoints, versions, etc. are available
    • Alex – is the “responder” referring to the directory or another entity? Do we need to be clearer about who the “responder” refers to
      • Murta – “responder” in this case refers to the directory
  • Supporting Diagrams & Flows
    • Alix – what is the main difference between the two diagrams? Second diagram seems more complex
      • Murta – second diagram illustrates a scenario where a directory service doesn’t know the version of the endpoint, so the requester needs to hit the actual endpoint to figure out the version
      • Alix – Should probably express that nuance more clearly in the narrative text

 

Coordination w/Security Tiger Team

  • Alix/Bob/Patrick participated on Security Tiger Team meeting on Dec 18
    • Security Tiger Team requested  participation to understand types of requirements being identified by the Directory Tiger Team
    • Provided context about Directory Tiger Team, including major themes and issues we’re reviewing. However, noted that we are still in preliminary stages
  • No labels