Instructions
Thank you for your interest in providing feedback on the GHP Interoperability Blueprint! We greatly appreciate you taking the time to review the document.
This draft was put together by the Interoperability Working Group for Good Health Pass in the Trust over IP Foundation, a JDF-charted organization in the Linux Foundation in conjunction with the Good Health Pass Collaborative. In order to comply with IPR and antitrust requirements, feedback at this stage requires you to agree to a brief disclosure in the response forms provided here.
You may choose to provide feedback as an individual or on behalf of your organization. Either way, please note that feedback without agreement to these terms and conditions cannot be accepted.
In providing feedback, we recommend that you take notes in a separate document as you review each section and submit that feedback in the relevant forms once you have completed review.
Overarching Feedback
Use this form (GHP Public Feedback – General & Narrative) to provide overarching feedback on the full blueprint. You can share feedback in the “General Feedback on the GHP Blueprint” section or specific feedback on the Narrative (Sections 1-4) and Glossary.
Section-Specific Feedback
Use the following forms to provide feedback on specific recommendation sections:
- GHP Public Feedback - 5.1 - Recommendation #1: Consistent User Experience
- GHP Public Feedback - 5.2 - Recommendation #2: Security, Privacy, and Data Protection
- GHP Public Feedback - 5.3 - Recommendation #3: Identity Binding
- GHP Public Feedback - 6.1 - Recommendation #4: Standard Data Models and Elements
- GHP Public Feedback - 6.2 - Recommendation #5: Credential Formats, Signatures, and Protocols
- GHP Public Feedback - 6.3 - Recommendation #6: Paper Credentials
- GHP Public Feedback - 7.1 - Recommendation #7: Rules Engines
- GHP Public Feedback - 7.2 - Recommendation #8: Trust Registries
- GHP Public Feedback - 7.3 - Recommendation #9: Governance and Trust Frameworks
Objective
Good Health Pass compliant implementations must use the same conceptual models, core terminology, interaction triggers (e.g., QR codes, deep links), consent models, and certification marks.
Terms of Reference
The Good Health Pass Collaborative was established, in part, to avoid a scenario in which people are faced with a mess of confusing, conflicting, overlapping requirements for how they can prove their COVID-19 status. Such fragmentation would not only introduce tremendous friction to the travel experience, but would also impede adoption, erode confidence, and hinder equitable economic and societal rebuilding.
The need to create a consistent user experience – based on a model of universal acceptance – is the most fundamental interoperability challenge we must meet. In short, a Good Health Pass-compliant digital health pass must be easy to obtain, use, and update, without any special user knowledge.
A consistent UX includes four key dimensions:
- A consistent mental model that reflects a natural, intuitive process for using either paper or digital credentials. As with the introduction of mobile boarding passes over the last decade, the use of verifiable credentials should be immediately adaptable to everyday processes and workflows, such as booking a flight, boarding a plane, crossing a border, etc.
- Consistent terminology (semantic interoperability) such that required data elements are collected accurately and user interface artifacts are presented consistently with meanings that are understood universally across all systems – the same way a red stop sign is universally recognized, regardless of language.
- Consistent user ceremonies – just as driving a car requires unlocking it, fastening the seat belt, starting it, putting it in gear, and using the accelerator and brakes, we need to agree on generally consistent “ceremonies” for travellers, whether they are using a general-purpose digital wallet or a special-purpose application. This includes setup, security and privacy warnings, consent and user rights management, backup and recovery, and compatibility with paper credentials.
- Consistent governance that is responsive to global, national, and regional regulations or operational parameters (e.g, for when a test has expired, etc.) and is adaptable to change.