Open Issue 12: addressing federated recipients

[lukeaduncan]

Should we specify details of addressing to federated recipients, at least for some
profiles (see section 1:46.8.2)? For example, with MHD ITI-65 we could pass the Organization.identifier
in the intendedRecipient field. There is already an IG for passing a Direct address in an XDR ITI-41.

[JohnMoehrke]

I thought this was moved out-of-scope for mCSD, because it is the scope for the whitepaper?

[jlamy]

Yes, explaining XDR and XCDR federated addressing goes in the whitepaper, because there are already requirements.

But since the whitepaper can only explain and refer to requirements, not add them, there are still a few gaps.

There is one gap for mCSD, and that is linking what the directory describes with required addressing/routing behavior. For example (paraphrasing): if the directory includes a path between organizations A and B defined via OrganizationAffiliations with code of DocShare-Federate, then:

• If Org A supports XCDR and Org B has a HCID, then Org A SHALL route XCDR transactions addressed to Org B
• If Org A supports XDR, then Org A SHALL route XDR transactions addressed to Org B (intendedRecipient = Org B business identifier)
• If Org A supports XCA, then Org A SHALL aggregate results from Org B in its XCA responses
• Etc.

I proposed a new work item to address this here.

There are also potential new federated addressing requirements that are missing:

• Targeted XCPD
• Targeted XCA
• Etc.

But maybe these belong as named options on those profiles, not in mCSD. Thoughts?