Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: mCSD Explicit Endpoint Accessibility Option #201

Open
jlamy opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Feature: mCSD Explicit Endpoint Accessibility Option #201

jlamy opened this issue Jun 20, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@jlamy
Copy link
Contributor

jlamy commented Jun 20, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
This is an outcome of the work on the Topologies Whitepaper.

This option allows a directory to support multiple perspectives, by explicitly defining which Endpoint resources are available to be used by particular clients of the directory. Note that this is informational, not a security mechanism; ultimately Endpoints and the resources they serve are protected through security mechanisms such as TLS, PKI, SAML, and OAuth.

Without this option, a community will need to externally specify policy or configuration if it needs to communicate constraints on the use of Endpoint resources in its directory.

Describe the solution you'd like
A client can tell exactly which Endpoints in a directory it is eligible to use. Ideally we would design this in a way where it could be incorporated in a directory not utilizing mCSD in its entirety.

We should make the codes normative that were created in the Topologies whitepaper: HIEInitiator, HIEResponder, PartnerConnectivity, and define an option that makes use of these.

Describe alternatives you've considered
See scratchpad from the Topologies Whitepaper: IHE/ITI.Topologies@cc09b25

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

@JohnMoehrke JohnMoehrke transferred this issue from IHE/ITI.mCSD Jun 20, 2023
@lukeaduncan
Copy link
Contributor

@jlamy Now that the whitepaper is done, should we review this again at the next face to face?

@lukeaduncan lukeaduncan moved this to Under assessment by planning in ITI Project Planning Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Under assessment by planning
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants