[Openid-specs-heart] HEART 2015-05-11 rough meeting notes

[Justin Richer]

I’m with Adrian in terms of decomposing the problem into its components. There was a lot of conflation of authentication, authorization, trust, assurance, and different actors in the discussion today. If we don’t keep the parts clearly-defined we’ll never make progress.

 — Justin


> On May 11, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper at healthurl.com> wrote:
> 
> I interpreted the principal goal of Bill's Use Case to be a desire to solve the multiple portals problem. I'm aware of parents of seriously ill children that have as many as 11 separate portals to deal with.
> 
> Is this the principal goal of this conversation? If so, then we can begin to decompose the goal of solving the multiple portals problem into registration, authorization and authentication components for the various actors. If there's another goal, please make it clear.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci at gmail.com <mailto:debbucci at gmail.com>> wrote:
> All
> 
> Great idea from Justin to post now and great discussion ... If other post - I will try to merge before the weekend for next week.
> 
> 
> 1. Alice calls the practice and schedules her initial appointment.
> 
> A.   The Scheduler does not find an existing account for Alice and creates a new account.
> 
>                                  i.       Local account – Alice may not know
> 
>                                 ii.       Could bind an external account/identity to it – binding ceremony
> 
>                               iii.       Object at database/table – that point to Alice OIDC + Public key or other stuff
> 
> B.   The Scheduler creates an appointment with the PCP Alice has selected.
> 
> 2. Alice arrives at the practice and registers with the front desk.
> 
> A.   Alice provides the Registrar with her driver’s license and insure card(s).
> 
>                                  i.        – id proofing process
> 
>                                 ii.       online eligibility checking – what is covered? payment
> 
>                               iii.       collect and scan – but how about verification ?
> 
> B.   The Registrar scan the cards and updates Alice’s account.
> 
>                                  i.       Id proofing
> 
>                                 ii.       Can this ID process be re-used “known to the practice?”  How can we represent that within the protocols?
> 
>                               iii.       FITS into vectors of trust in IETF work
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iii.1.              Verify holder of claims/document with identity– high level of confidence
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iii.2.              Onboarding ceremony can bind and verify separately
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iii.3.              Quick photograph and imbed into record for evidence of practice.
> 
>                                iv.       How does the profiles represent the level of trusts – two levels of proofing  - trust elevation  -
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.1.               (bill concerns) Login to phr  - portals will create login account – Alice has a choice – PCP or PHR  - potential to use multiple accounts with different levels of trust – how does the levels of trust get described across relying parties/resource servers (?)  How do we know Alice is Alice?
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.2.               Alice should have the choice to use whatever. Identity to bind external accounts with local accounts is powerful
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.3.               When alice goes to specialist – why would alice need an additional proofing? Specialist can always do their own binding process.
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.4.               Who is the system of record – not bound in OAUTH world.  Alice could prove in multi- ways.
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.5.               FHIR Referral message – between provider – I am referring to alice –I know here as 1234 – she used cred (issuer/subject) –  if you trust me  - let her in – save binding ceremony.   Who’s to trust bits of information –
> 
> 1.1.1.2.B.iv.6.               If FHIR API increases patient engagement going forward …once Alice has set up credential –next system –if level of trust – should be able to transfer /share information.
> 
>                                 v.       More info – vectors of trust and binding … take advantage of capabilities that did not exist in paper world
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Adrian Gropper MD
> Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
> http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/ <http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150511/b7838b1d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150511/b7838b1d/attachment-0001.asc>