[Openid-specs-heart] Comments on the UMA+FHIR profile (and one additional profile comment)

Eve Maler eve.maler at forgerock.com
Tue Feb 28 19:38:52 UTC 2017


The interesting thing about having the HEART profile(s) cover this use case is that the sharing of the data goes from an exception basis to an in-band, auditable, patient-involved (yet still lightweight) basis, where the other parties know they're responsible for proving (later) that there was a legitimate reason for the access based on their trust of the requesting party's claims. Accountability can go way up, and access involves using the "same technology stack as usual".

This is as opposed to current practice; a study I saw a few years ago for a European country showed that ~70% of hospital record access in one case was exception-based vs. rule-based -- and that's in a provider-to-provider scenario. I bet no one is surprised.

Eve (from my iPad)

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Ioana Singureanu <ioana.singureanu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> HI Nancy et al;
> 
> 
> For patient safety, theUMA policy would not be invoked in cases when the user/initiator asserts the purpose of the request is "emergency" (rather "treatment" or "research").   For simplicity, we could assume that any consent or UMA policy will never refer to"emergency treatment" or "ER" because it simply does not matter in those cases.
> 
> As a use cases, it may be a useful to address "emergency" but from an information flow it's trivial, the UMA would be disregarded. If the client is authorized, they will get all the data requested even if it's restricted.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ioana Singureanu
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Nancy Lush <nlush at lgisoftware.com> wrote:
>> Re:  But I also wonder if, in practice, there will be other true role-based claims that would supplant the er/btg claim in practice.
>> 
>> Good thought.  I had a problem using er for Emergency Responder as I always think of the ER as Emergency Room.  Granted, they may both need to BTG, but the Emergency Room role is typically within a hospital setting and the Emergency Responder may be a deputized citizen.  I do believe that Emergency Responders represent a hole in our interoperability use cases that need attention.  Will be good to see Glen’s whitepaper and understand the issue more holistically.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks Justin.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -Nancy
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:28 PM
>> To: openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> Subject: [Openid-specs-heart] Comments on the UMA+FHIR profile (and one additional profile comment)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Great stuff!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> UMA+FHIR profile:
>> 
>> User-Managed Access should have a hyphen throughout.
>> As you already noted, the "openid-heart-fhir-oauth2" needs to be changed.
>> Claim semantics: Make this their own section (keeping the positioning at Sec 3 is fine), and make sure to register them in the OIDC JWT claims registry. We could have a separate section (what is currently the introduction to Sec 3) discussing Claims Presentation, but I'm not sure this is warranted. Instead, the intro to discussing claim semantics could make clear that claims MAY be pushed or interactively gathered. (We haven't yet defined any claim profiles for pushed claims, but we should probably consider this: OIDC, I assume?)
>> src claim: I wasn't sure if this would keep the same name, but it should probably be "licensing" (or "accreditation") "authority" (rather than "board") to be a bit more generic.
>> Food for thought: For the same reason that "airplane mode" is an awkward name for turning off cell signal reception on your mobile device -- it's too specific -- maybe the "er" claim should be called "btg" to match the scope name. But I also wonder if, in practice, there will be other true role-based claims that would supplant the er/btg claim in practice. In which case, Sec 4.1 could simply have a SHOULD or MUST around enabling the resource owner to audit the specific "btg"-related policies in place along with making any access ultimately granted auditable and available to the resource owner, etc.
>> In UMA2, we've learned that the RS should document its pattern of permission requests ("registrations"), and this may be relevant for profiling UMA1 as well. It would help the client know what sort of stuff it may be getting in its RPT.
>> in Section 4: s/implementors/implementers/
>>  
>> 
>> UMA profile:
>> 
>> TTL of the PAT: The advice given is generic, referring to the OAuth profile. But the PAT specifically needs to be used in an "offline" (asynchronous) way most of the time (on client access attempts) and for most use cases (when the requesting party isn't the same as the resource owner). Should we say something specific about this? The UMA Implementers' Guide does.
>> Eve Maler
>> ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
>> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>    Ioana Singureanu
>    Eversolve, LLC
>    T: 603 548 5640
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20170228/e36d8bfb/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-heart mailing list