20160218 - Meeting minutes, Thursday, February 18th, 2016 - OpenNCP Technical Committee Meeting
OpenNCP Technical Committee Meeting
Estimated - 13:00 to 14:00 CET
Performed - 13:00 to 14:20 CET
AGENDA
- Relaxation topics: Decision on how to implement and to deal with message signature è https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ncp/Open+discussion
- Cache mechanism:
- SMP/SML cache mechanism
- Configuration manager cache mechanism
- Release roadmap
- Security release?
- epSOS Web and portal?
- SMP
- CDA: alignment of xml file with the CDA implementation guide => Point added to the "proposed agenda"
- Specification deviations draft
- TSL editor – Naming of the NCP Service Status List: do we really need syntax over it?”
- List of issues – back log
- Change proposal template review/comments? => Bi-weekly
- Participation Connectathon Bochum 11-15/04
- Next meeting
- National connector IHE compliant => Marcello Melgara
Adobe Connect
http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/openncp/
Room Passcode: markus.kalliola or Licinio Kustra Mano
----------------
If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:
Test your connection: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat and Adobe Connect are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
PARTICIPANTS
Today's Meeting Participants:
MEETING NOTES
- Relaxation topics: Decision on how to implement and to deal with message signature: https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ncp/Open+discussion
- Digital signature is easier to put in place and by doing this we would be compliant with the specifications.
- Heiko Zimmermann is also in favour of the digital signature, which is already working on SANTE platform.
Stéphane Spahni: if xml digital signature is successful in Luxembourg, we can use it too.
From the developpers point of view it is ok to use digital signature. Massimiliano Masi: epsos specs 3.8.7 already defined the algorithm and thus there is nothing to do on the specifications point of view.
What about performance?
Heiko Zimmermann: we can only estimate regarding the performance. Are there experience? No.
According to Sit should not be a problem because we don't exchange a lot of messages
Stéphane Spahni: it might happen if the machine has a too low load. He experienced problems with creating certificates with new machines which are more powerful.
Massimiliano Masi: we should be worried about performance in case of denial of services, but the risk is very low. Should not be a performance issue.
- There were question regarding secure conversation but there have been some improvements on the solution which is now mature.
- Decision to go with xml digital signature.
- Digital signature is easier to put in place and by doing this we would be compliant with the specifications.
- Cache mechanism:
- A discussion was initiated by e-mail regarding performance issue. The question is how do we work with the cache?
- Joao made an analysis on the use of cache. Problem is to create a distributed cache or configuration manager as standalone component.
There are a lot of possible solution of distributed cache. It merges the need for SMP/SML and config manager.- Joao Cunha We'll need a database
- 2 kinds of properties have to be distinguished and skip them in files and some to be kept in database (url point)
- Trusted node and how to access NCP in a secured way. In order to have a secure node we should have in a database => to be checked with Marcello Melgara
- Massimiliano Masi: the idea was to have also the value in cache.
- S: we don't need a full cache. How do we maintain different properties values between components?
- How many accesses will we have?
- Massimiliano Masi: The caching mechanism was introduced to have the SMP querying to the DNS cache
- Distributed cache is complex => point of failure
- 2 solutions: using 1 tool (Jgroup or other...), creating another standalone component for configuration manager. The easiest according to S would be to use a tool
- Massimiliano Masi: why don't we just create interfaces and MS decide to implement what they want? and eventually give a reference implementation Jgroup or other as a plug-in
- Joao Cunha: do we have a need from the MS? Apparently yes.
- Conclusion?
- In order to have a secure node we should have in a database - to be validated with Marcello Melgara
- In any case we need a cache => List all the tool that exist in open source, then organize a vote on a discussion page
- ? Timeline Connectathon
- Massimiliano Masi: Jgroup
- Joao made an analysis on the use of cache. Problem is to create a distributed cache or configuration manager as standalone component.
- A discussion was initiated by e-mail regarding performance issue. The question is how do we work with the cache?
- Release roadmap
- Can we release 2.4.0 and include the security fixes?
- Wait for the end of tests between Portugal and CH.Stéphane Spahni2.4.0 RC 0 is the latest version. And will not be installed before the end of March
- Merge RC 1 + secu fixes which are mainly configuration actions. to be included in R2.4.0 RC0
- Stéphane Spahni, Heiko Zimmermann is also in favour of merging both releases
- Developments SMP/SML holding decision on cache mechanism, thus it is not sure it would be ready for end of March.
- epSOS Web and portal?
- Kostas Karkaletsis did already the fixes that we still need to test
- SMP => See previous point
- Can we release 2.4.0 and include the security fixes?
- CDA: alignment of xml file with the CDA implementation guide => Point added to the "proposed agenda"
- Question from Heiko Zimmermann: Are the modifications in the CDA implementation guide, which has been revised in Expand, implementing compliance to the current version of the EU Guidelines on Patient Summary
- Michele to ask to Marcello Melgara
- Specification deviations draft => Massimiliano Masi : the document is available on the security task force, comments from Joao and Marcello => epsos specs 3.8
- Could Kostas check before the next security? 1pm
- TSL editor – Naming of the NCP Service Status List: do we really need syntax over it?” problem with specs and implementation;
- Joao also finds a list of issues that he puts in comment in a page on the wiki meeting minutes deviation see the differences : 20160113 - Meeting minutes, Wednesday January 13th 2016 - OpenNCP Specifications and Implementations Deviations
- Not to be included in this release but next one 2.4.1 with SMP/SML, TSL and other fixes
- List of issues – back log
- Proposition of Kostas to work on a Agile way
- Good idea because we've lots of issues, proposition to separate issues in epic ...
- Is the Community ok to work in this mode?
- S will organize a meeting/task to organize the issues
- Change proposal template review/comments? => Bi-weekly
- Participation Connectathon Bochum 11-15/04 - No updateNext meeting
- Next meetings
- National connector IHE compliant => Marcello Melgara
- next security. 1pm
- next technical 1 pm