Informal notes on concall to review draft proposed "IDEF Work Group" Charter

Owned by Armin Kathrein
Jul 24, 2019
5 min read

Date

 3:00-4:30PM US Eastern time

Attendees

Goals

  • Get rough consensus on this draft as revised in discussion today, and identify participants to will consider joining to proposing it to the LC

Discussion items

The invitation was sent to all currently registered Participants of the "IDESG WG" via the WG-IDESG@kantatainitiative.org list, plus David Temoshok and Adam Madlin; it may also have been forwarded at my request to the IDESG Healthcare Committee. 

It was announced that the call was being recorded. 

Martin reviewed the agenda: 

  1. Summary by KI Leadership Council Chair Andrew H. of the functions of and process for developing and approving KI WG Charters, and how a Charter relates to the operation of a Work Group

  2. Section-by-section summary of the rationale for the current text of each section, with discussion and comment per section.

  3. Other/general comments and discussion

  4. Summary of progress toward a proposed draft for submission to the Leadership Council, and steps for reaching closure

Andrew reviewed KI Charter and WG processes, emphasizing that the Charter defines an outer bound for the WG's activities, and the relatively lightweight oversight of WG operations by the LC or other KI authorities. 

Martin summarized and explained the rationale for each section of the draft: 

  1. Name: consensus that the WG name should be "IDEF Work Group" to focus on the Framework and not its IDESG organizational origin. (Current references to "IDESG WG" will be replaced.)

  2. Purpose: Multiple suggestions to add/retain terms "resilience", "voluntary", and "cost effective." Two Participants suggested that as concern fades that the Framework might be mandated by the US Government, the relevance of "voluntary" will be less. One Participant prefers "privacy preserving" vs "privacy enhancing." 

  3. Scope: One Participant suggested that the three terms "Architecture" Framework" and "Trust-Mark"  (not currently in the draft) should be emphasized. Andrew H clarified that within KI, responsibility for awarding trust-marks and for marketing them lies outside a WG's scope. On the matter of called-out sub-WGs, Martin drew participant's attention to the fact that sub-WGs based on the IDESG's Permanent Committees are not proposed. He recalled the decisions made late last year to reorganize IDESG Plenary Committees to focus on work that cuts across the then-existing Committees, and this idea is implemented in this Charter draft. No objection was raised to this approach and one participant enthusiastically supported the approach.  

  4. Specifications: Martin explained that only 1 deliverable (IDEFv1.1) was shown here with a specific target date because he understood that the time-scope of this draft should be only for Calendar 2018. Andrew clarified that given the timing, this Charter should cover through the end of calendar 2019. Colin added that the second deliverable (IDEF v2.0) shown with a target date of TBD should be assigned a specific target date in 2019. Andrew further added that the LC takes meeting these dates seriously in considering whether a Work Group should be continued.   

  5. Other Recommendations: Martin repeated his intention to review the deliverable dates in this section in light of the end-of-2019 guidance. Martin sought clarification on deliverable 4 (IDEF Registry, Phase II vs. the IDEF v 1.1 (and 2 suggested for future.) Mary explained that the IDEF Reg Phase II had to do with the list of items under development (phase I, June 2016 launch into beta but without many features; June 2018 soft launch with balance of features from Phase II, but without security, identity system or the tracking system that are still needed to create a self serve registry or 3rd party certification system.) And that IDEF 1.1 was a slight rev to requirements and supplemental guidance (sg), and 2.0 was the proposed much larger change to requirements and sg that could be developed in future. Martin confirmed that the term used in the draft ("enhancement") was meant to refer to the security-related enhancements that was not funded for the IDESG's recent Phase II project, but also said he thought that the Registry sub-WG might reconsider the scope of enhancements in the current KI context. 2019. Colin noted that direct management of any development work would be outside the scope of a WG. He also suggested adding a WG Report as a deliverable in this section, as WG Reports can demonstrate the value of the WG without requiring a lengthy approval process.  

  6. Leadership: Andrew clarified that KI does not require that a WG Editor be elected, and emphasized the importance of arranging for a well-qualified person for this role. He mentioned that some WG's have been able to obtain external sponsorship to support a paid Editor. Participants raised no questions on this section.

  7. Audience: Andrew emphasized how important it is for a WG to carefully think through the issue of the audience for the WG's work products. If potential sponsors or users of a planned work product  cannot be very specifically identified, then the value of product should be reconsidered. Conversely, thinking about the intended users of a WG deliverable can lead to identifying sponsors and/or active work-group contributors. There were no other comments on this section from call participants.  

  8. Duration: The current draft specifies that the WG will not have a specified termination as it is centered around ongoing maintenance and evolution of the IDEF and related artifacts. 

  9. IPR: There was no objection to adoption of the KI default IP regime for the WG. 

  10. Related work and Liaisons: Martin noted that liaison/coordination relationships identified in the current draft are only with other KI groups, but that Bev Corwin (IDESG International Committee Chair) had indicated she wants to maintain their existing relationship with EEMA. COlin noted that there is already a KI Corporate-level Liaison Arrangement with EEMA. Martin observed that in the on-line listing of KI Liaison arrangements, EEMA (among others) indicated both a KI Corporate and one or more WG-level relationships. Tom Sullivan suggested the possibility of relationships with two healthcare-related activities: HIMSS and the CARIN Alliance. Martin asked if this is or has been any formal liaison relationship with NIST; Colin said there is not an was uncertain whether NIST, as a matter of policy, would consider this type of relationship.     

  11. Contributions: No discussion and no questions were raised. 

  12. Proposers:  Martin noted that KI rules require a minimum of three Proposers for a WG Charter, and asked participants to consider adding their names as Proposers of this IDEF WG.

  13. Leverage: It was noted that IDEF, being part of Kantara now, should leverage as much of the Kantara body of work (such as the new 800-63 assessment guides and the SAML interop profile) as possible.

General discussion of the draft revisited or added specific comments on several sections, but did not raise completely new issues. Ben Wilson said he will be a Proposer. 

Martin outlined a process for reaching closure on a draft for submission to the LC, as follows:

  1. Martin will over the next few days revise the current draft in light of today's discussion. 

  2. Other Participants should add Comments or "direct edits" of the text. (Andrew demonstrated how to compare document versions in the Confluence tool. ) 

  3. Early next week Martin will notify all IDESG WG Participants and participants in today's call of a revised version of the draft, and invite them to indicate (in a Comment) whether they are satisfied or not with the draft, or have specific changes that would let them approve. If satisfied, will the participant be a Proposer.

  4. Martin will seek advice of Andrew (as LC Chair) as to whether the revised draft is in good enough shape to send forward for LC consideration. 

  


Action items