1. Federated Directory Services Revised Proposal for 2009/10 presented to the IT Infrastructure Planning Committee J. Caumanns, O. Rode, R. Kuhlisch, FHGISST 12 October 2009

2. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Problem Statement 2008: 1 Proposal for a directory profile2008: 1 Proposal for a directory profile 2009: 3 Proposals for directory profiles2009: 3 Proposals for directory profiles as use cases show, directories on services and organisations are a mandatory prerequisite for distributed healthcare networksas use cases show, directories on services and organisations are a mandatory prerequisite for distributed healthcare networks FDS Essentials:FDS Essentials: –Separation of schemas from query and mgmt. infrastructure –authonomy of directory providers –multiple deployment options: P2P, Master-Slave, Hierarchy,....

3. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee The focus of the proposed implementable white paper is on the “envelope” for directory queries and on mechanisms for forwarding such queries among directory services in order to allow for the implementation of different directory topologies (e.g. hierarchy, master-slave, P2P, centralized).The focus of the proposed implementable white paper is on the “envelope” for directory queries and on mechanisms for forwarding such queries among directory services in order to allow for the implementation of different directory topologies (e.g. hierarchy, master-slave, P2P, centralized). The FDS actors and transactions will extend the existing PWP profile and the proposed profiles on configuration and provider directories with functionalities for cross-domain directory linkage.The FDS actors and transactions will extend the existing PWP profile and the proposed profiles on configuration and provider directories with functionalities for cross-domain directory linkage.

4. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee FDS Topology

5. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee HITPR Topology

6. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee FDS Directory Integration dir=HITPR Provider

7. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Directory Schema Co-Existence dir=HITPR Provider DSDS HITPR DODS

8. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Sample: Find Service URL by OID

9. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Proposed Standards & Systems DSML v2 to query (LDAP) directoriesDSML v2 to query (LDAP) directories –LDAP2UDDI adaptors available from industry IHE PWP as basis and referenceIHE PWP as basis and reference –RFC2798 (inetOrgPerson), RFC2256 (X500 user schema) IHE ATNA for FDS AuthenticityIHE ATNA for FDS Authenticity IHE XUA to support access controlIHE XUA to support access control IHE White Paper on Cross-Community Information ExchangeIHE White Paper on Cross-Community Information Exchange Alternatives to discuss (in January....):Alternatives to discuss (in January....): –OMG IS (former EIS) –UDDI

10. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Scope of the White Paper Upper Directory Tree structure (more or less implied)Upper Directory Tree structure (more or less implied) Client and P2P query transactions (DSML v2)Client and P2P query transactions (DSML v2) Registration of FDS for a certain domainRegistration of FDS for a certain domain security issues (mainly ATNA)security issues (mainly ATNA)

11. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Discussion Editor: Fraunhofer ISSTEditor: Fraunhofer ISST Editing support by: Swisssign, ELGA, iSoft, ISProEditing support by: Swisssign, ELGA, iSoft, ISPro Estimated Effort: LowEstimated Effort: Low Prototype implementation as “proof of concept” at Fraunhofer ISSTPrototype implementation as “proof of concept” at Fraunhofer ISST integration with eCR v1.4 (2010) planned and agreed with industry; deployment into running eCR pilot projects and running networks late 2010integration with eCR v1.4 (2010) planned and agreed with industry; deployment into running eCR pilot projects and running networks late 2010

12. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee WP Outline [#pages] Use cases (incl. deployment and topology options): [3]Use cases (incl. deployment and topology options): [3] Multi-Schema support (IHE directory profiles): [2]Multi-Schema support (IHE directory profiles): [2] actors and transactions (functional): [2]actors and transactions (functional): [2] transaction specification (technical): [3]transaction specification (technical): [3] security considerations (use of ATNA and XUA): [2]security considerations (use of ATNA and XUA): [2] management considerations (adding and removing directories): [2]management considerations (adding and removing directories): [2] routing (optimization of query forwarding): [1]routing (optimization of query forwarding): [1][15]

13. IT Infrastructure Planning Committee Discussion Alternatives:Alternatives: –IHE ITI designs each directory service from scratch, including actors, transactions, and schemas –other IHE domains design directory schemas and transactions that then have to be integrated afterwards by ITI Facts:Facts: –every distributed EHR needs a service directory. No distributed EHR – No demand for directories (and vice versa)No distributed EHR – No demand for directories (and vice versa) No service directory – no distributed EHRNo service directory – no distributed EHR –XUA makes no sense for safeguarding XDS etc. without an organisation directory