Attendees
- Chris Buchanan, chair
- Kaliya Young, WG co-chair
- Noam Arzt
- Rob Broere
- Trev Harmon, PM
- viola wang
Agenda Items
| Time | Item | Who |
|---|---|---|
| 2 min | Welcome & Antitrust Policy Notice | Trev |
| 5 min | Overview of the public feedback document | Chris |
Reviewed public feedback | Everyone |
Recording - Link
Notes
- Antitrust and IPR announcement
- Noam put in a comment that the document is long and complex, and therefore difficult to understand if you haven’t been involved from the beginning.
- When do the 30/90/180 days start?
- Kaliya noted that we are going to address this in the opening of the document.
- Kaliya, part of the 30/90/180 framework is to help with momentum.
- Noam is concerned that this specific timeframe might be providing naysayers with opportunities to take shots at the overall approach as the time passes.
- Discussed the note from Harmen van derk Kooij.
- Noam provided a link to their ICE open source project in the References.
- Regarding the notes from the DIF H&T SIG, there was a decision by the larger group that we would work with them for a separate document.
- We’ll add ICTS’s links into the references, as well.
- Regarding Daniel Hardman’s comment, Chris talked a few days ago with Kaliya about it. He noted that when we started, several people asked why we even had a rules engine section because there is a difference between process and product, and rules engines are products. Consequently, we scoped things down.
- Some people reading our section are seeing rules engines as verifiers. This is true sometimes, but not always.
- If we scope back up, then we end up with a whole document on this single subject.
- We may need to add more clarification regarding scope.
- Noam thinks that where we should have focused was on the rules, not necessarily the mechanism for enforcing those rules.
- Rules engines don’t need to be a network service; it can be a local service. We may need a short comment in the document to clarify this.
- We had a discussion regarding Trevor Butterworth’s second comment.
- We moved on to the specifically tagged comments in our document.
- Attestations are signed claims. Just because a health event took place, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the health event was clinically validated. This lead to a discussion regarding how this fits into the overall structure.
- Medical / clinical efficaciousness evaluation is not happening currently in these systems. Noam pushed for this to happen.
- Validity is going to be determined by the destination (generally at the country level). Chris views this approach as being similar to how travel visas are handled today.
- From a privacy point of view, the medical information should be kept as early in the process as possible.
- We discussed the comment from Hervé Prezet in 7.1.5.1.1.
- In this case, the airline is the customer.
- We probably need to rewrite part of this section to make it more clear.
- It would be helpful to have the “zone markers” in Figure 13.
Chat Log
Action Items
- Everyone to provide feedback on the public feedback.