2021-06-21 Rules Engines Drafting Group Meeting Notes - Session 1

Attendees

• @Chris B, chair

• @Kaliya Young, WG co-chair

• @Noam Arzt

• Rob Broere

• @Trev Harmon, PM

• @viola wang

Agenda Items

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

1. Everyone to provide feedback on the public feedback.