Open Issue 18: addressing federated recipients

[lukeaduncan]

Should we specify details of addressing 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.

[lukeaduncan]

Copied from #60 from @slagesse-epic :
Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Open Issue mCSD_15

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Profiling the relationship between intendedRecipient and values found in the mCSD directory is one of the most critical pieces missing for federated push messaging. However, I'm not sure if this belongs in the mCSD IG, the XDR integration profile, a whitepaper, or elsewhere.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Priority:

Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

[lukeaduncan]

Copied from #60 from @jlamy:
I agree. We don't want to repeat the work done to profile ITI-41 intendedRecipient = Direct address, but there needs to be a place where similar profiling lives, e.g. ITI-41 intendedRecipient = Organization connected via OrgAff with code DocShare-federate.