LDAP+X500+IHE+HPD+Workstream+Meeting+11-22-2011


 * Provider Directories (PD) Initiative LDAP X.500/ IHE HPD Workstream Meeting**
 * Date:** 11-22-2011
 * Time:** 11:00 am - 12:00 pm
 * Dial In:**1-408-600-3600 | **Passcode:** 665 267 764


 * Meeting Agenda:**
 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Finalize mappings || 60 ||

Attendance
Robert Dieterle, Aaron Zimmerman, Karen Witting, Peter Bachman, Naveen Amiruddin, Victor Palli, Jonathan Tadese, Ron Sawdey, Van Nguyen

Action Items

 * **#** || **Date Initiated** || **Action** || **Owner** || **Status** || **Date Closed** ||
 * 1 || 11/22/20 || Contact Vince regarding Provider Directory elements || Bob Dieterle || Open ||  ||

Meeting Notes

 * Individual Status will be mapped the same way even though it is only included in the Response data set, no changes are necessary
 * Date of birth is a gap
 * Email general is a non-Direct Project email address. Email direct is the one that exists in the ESI. Somehow it needs to be combined in the ESI data object.
 * Organization type changed from single to multiple to reflect multiplicity of element under data model
 * Added additional notes to Organization and Individual ESI objects to clarify gaps
 * Karen - LDAP can hold the ESI Direct Address information; all other elements would demand an incompatible extension in LDAP. This extension would be non-trivial to develop.
 * Karen - Not sure HPD can be extended in a non-breaking way to support these elements. HPD doesn’t carry all the information that is desired. HPD has an attribute that holds a Digital Certificate in binary form. **//We want to associate an ID to that Certificate, but HPD doesn’t support that.//** Data model demands the ability to pull content from inside Digital Certificate, save it as ID, and associate it to that Digital Certificate. **//HPD doesn’t support any associations.//**
 * Karen – Don’t want to place Digital Certificate in multiple places in an LDAP directory, it’s too big.
 * Bob – Possible use case that demands Digital Certificate ID numbers (serial numbers) might be to pull a series of ESI’s and certificates from a provider directory, compare to revocation list of serial numbers.
 * Karen - This needs to be done by the user, but is not managed by the provider directory implementation.
 * Karen - Cannot think of a use case in which a person needs to search by Digital Certificate distinguished name alone.
 * We have an organization; we’re allowing that organization to have multiple Digital Certificates, each with a different distinguished name inside. Name of organization may not match every distinguished name in each DC. Can’t assume identical mapping.
 * Concerned that there is no use case for specifying a distinguished name of a certificate in a query to a health care provider directory. Therefore, we shouldn’t put that entry into a query because it makes it more complicated, when goal is to keep it simple.
 * Action Item: Support team will contact Vince regarding Provider Directory elements