ATNA Audit Format Problems

When the ITI Technical Committee reviewed the Ballot 20 results on Feb 20, one of the approved-for-final-text CPs is CP-ITI-731.

This CP updates the requirement for ATNA audit message format to that specified in DICOM 2011 Final Text. (CP-ITI-622, in 2013 Ballot 18 and integrated into ITI TF version 10, had previously replaced the "Supplement 95" references with "DICOM 2011" references, implicitly changing the schema, but CP-ITI-731 is more explicit.) CP-ITI-731 acknowledges that DICOM Supplement 95 extended the schema defined in RFC-3881, and that DICOM Final Text 2011 defined a different, but similar, schema.

CP-ITI-731 also documents several differences between RFC-3881 and the DICOM schemas, but acknowledges that the list of differences is not all-inclusive.

Please read the details in the CPs themselves.

For 2014 connectathons, support for either schema is accepted. The Syslog Collector tool has attempted to accommodate differences in the schema, and we expect to see a mix of support among the Secure Node/Applications & Audit Record Repositories.

For 2015 connectathons, we hope to move implementers toward support for the DICOM FT schema.

In various email chains & connectathon-related conversations, implementers have referred to problems with the DICOM schema, or problems with the audit specification in the ITI Tech Framework resulting from this change. The ITI Technical Committee would like to address this and is asking the developer community to document specific problems so that the ITI Tech Cmte can address these via Change Proposal before the next version of the Technical Framework is published in the fall.

We are using this wiki page to gather input. Please provide feedback by April 4.

Please contribute by adding a row to this table to document a problem you have found. If you don't have a login on this wiki, you can request one.

Name / email	Problem Desc	Reference (ie in TF, DICOM)	Proposed solution
Massimiliano Masi massimiliano.masi@tiani-spirit.com	Possible interoperability problem with XSPA and the new DICOM audit schema. Details in this post: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ititech/4eMj_wV4jlM
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu	CP states that, in the RFC-3881 schema, displayName is a required attribute of CodedValueType. It is actually optional, although many ATNA message specifications require it.	CP-ITI-731-01, new section 3.20.7.1.1, first bullet. RFC-3881 6.1	Since we are moving away from the RFC-3881 schema, perhaps we can just ignore this, although it has some potential to be confusing and, ATNA message specifications could not require it. (I don't know of any.)
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu
Email Ralph Moulton moultonr@mir.wustl.edu