<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As someone who would really like to see the result be maintained in IHE, I will state that we should not be distracting ourselves with this right now. I really want to encourage progress regardless of where the specification eventually lives. There are representatives from MANY organizations participating in HEART. We all are collaborating here because we think that this is the best group to focus on this problem. I often direct people to this group because of this cross-section of representation. Last week at the HL7 meeting I directed many people to HEART, both in broad statements and one-on-one. I truly believe that HEART has the right mixture of participation, and that no-other group has that broad of a mixture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am sure all of us would like to see the result maintained in their favorite way. I might suggest that we defer further decisions until we have something worthy of being called a specification. As Justin points out, the charter does expect that the result will be published in OIDF. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Glen has simply pointed out the benefit of leveraging the IHE process… I don’t think he suggested it as a replacement for OIDF. Let’s just leave this as ‘knowledge shared’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces@lists.openid.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Justin Richer<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 14, 2015 9:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> Glen Marshall [SRS]<br><b>Cc:</b> openid-specs-heart@lists.openid.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-heart] Draft HEART Meeting Notes 2015-10-13<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I absolutely agree that we need to interact with other groups, even participate in their discussions and events. The connectathons are interesting opportunities and I think that HEART could have a good fit there.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But that doesn’t mean that our documents won’t stand on their own in OIDF. I think it’s not a logical conclusion to say that interacting with other groups leads to publishing elsewhere, and that’s the point I was trying to make.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> — Justin<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Glen Marshall [SRS] <<a href="mailto:gfm@securityrs.com">gfm@securityrs.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Justin,<br><br>One of the reasons I mentioned IHE yesterday is that there are annual events, called the Connectathons, in which people who have implemented IHE profiles test for interoperability. The North American Connectathon happens in January. Afterwards, Connectathon participants exhibit their working solutions in the HIMSS Interoperability Showcase. There is a similar Connectathon in Europe. The number of vendors in the Connectathons is impressive, and security is an essential infrastructure element for them. This would help satisfy the pilot implementation need for HEART. <br><br>The provenance and IP stewardship of the underlying standards for IHE is very flexible. IHE adds healthcare use case profiling and testing. There is also a lot of cross-membership between IHE, HL7, DICOM, and other healthcare SDOs and consortia. It is a good portal for introducing and coordinating health IT standardization.<br><br>There is some early discussion among some IHE participants regarding an update to the <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.ihe.net_index.php-3Ftitle-3DInternet-5FUser-5FAuthorization&d=BQMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=B4hg7NQHul-cxfpT_e9Lh49ujUftqzJ6q17C2t3eI64&m=mSlSK1Mcs3IT1IinAZno9YG89n3UOxGVEPrweVZ8j7I&s=9g1zHONH7fdYEWNTvk57VKZp1hPsq1bZkXVX7Vnyp_c&e=">Internet User Authorization (IUA) profile.</a> The current profile uses RFC 6749 and 6750 as the underlying standards. This is all related to HL7 FHIR and SMART on FHIR. Argonaut is working on security in parallel, as is the HL7 Security Workgroup. This is all quite relevant to HEART.<br><br>Your thoughts? <br><br>Disclosure: I am one of the security test monitors at the annual North American Connectathon and, in the past, was very active in IHE and HL7 as well as other standardization work.<br> <br>Best,<br>Glen<br> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>Glen F. Marshall</b><br>Consultant<br>Security Risk Solutions, Inc.<br>698 Fishermans Bend<br>Mount Pleasant, SC 29464<br>Tel: (610) 644-2452<br>Mobile: (610) 613-3084<br><a href="mailto:gfm@securityrs.com">gfm@securityrs.com</a><br><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.securityrisksolutions.com_&d=BQMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=B4hg7NQHul-cxfpT_e9Lh49ujUftqzJ6q17C2t3eI64&m=mSlSK1Mcs3IT1IinAZno9YG89n3UOxGVEPrweVZ8j7I&s=QJr8rQtYnYjed6ZmSYA0gG5YmHOmVCZNAdAgypGyQ4c&e=">www.SecurityRiskSolutions.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>