Rad Tech Minutes 2009.06.10

Attendees

• David Clunie - RadPharm, Co-chair
• Chris Lindop - GE, Co-chair
• Jere Darling -
• David Heaney - McKesson
• Kinson Ho - Agfa
• Tim Krehl - Sorna
• Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba
• Bas Revet - Philips
• Antje Schroeder - Siemens
• Paul Seifert - Agfa
• Lynn Felhofer - Technical Project Manager
• Chris Carr - RSNA
• Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA

Minutes

• Resolve final comments on the 2009 supplements and vote to approve for publication

• Basic Image Review

• David Clunie reviewed the current draft and addressed additional committee comments
• David Clunie will send revised draft to Chris Carr for final editing and publication

• Portable Data for Imaging Extensions

• David Clunie reviewed the current draft and addressed additional committee comments

• Portable Media Sender will not be tested as a separate Actor or included as such in Integration Statements

• David Clunie will send revised draft to Chris Carr for final editing and publication

• Enhanced MR Diffusion Imaging

• Bas Revet reviewed the current draft and addressed additional committee comments

• Consider making section on Display of MR Imaging Objects normative

• This change needs to be review with the DICOM MR working group
• Bas will revise the section as normative text and submit to MR work group
• Schedule teleconference with MR working group to review and approve change

• Enhanced CT/MR Perfusion Imaging

• Bas Revet reviewed the current draft and addressed additional committee comments
• Bas will send revised draft to Chris Carr for final editing and publication

• Cross-enterprise Document Sharing for Imaging using XDS.b (XDS-I.b)
  • Comments received that warrant Committee discussion:

1. Sec 18.6, line 300 – We say that the ATNA Encryption option is required for all Secure Nodes/Apps grouped with an XDS-I.b actor. That means DICOM transactions between the Img Doc Source and Img Doc Consumer must be encrypted. However, in ITI TF-2: 3.19.6.3.1, it says “IHE permits DICOM and HL7 connections to use encryption none because these transactions are often internal….”. Is it our intent for XDS-I.b to have stricter rules for DICOM transactions than ATNA? If so, then the "hyperlink to images from reports" discussion in section 4.68.4.1.2.2 should remind implementers of the (implied) requirements due to TLS and the ATNA Encryption option.
2. ITI CP-142 (currently out for ballot) is going to split ITI TF-2 into two documents for the 2009 Final Text version (It’s getting too big). It is going to be split into Volume 2a and Volume 2b. All of the XDS.b transactions are going to land in 2b, so your volume references will need updating in this version (I think). And, volume 2 appendices are being moved to their own volume called to 2x. So now we will have, for example, ITI TF-2x: Appendix V – Web Services for IHE Transaction (in line 895 & 898 of your doc.

• Should we require the ATNA Encryption Option? This is not a requirement of XDS.b, but is a general requirement for users

• Paul Seifert will communicate with ITI security experts about why this was not required for XDS.b

• Publication Process
• Other Tech Cmte Business
• Next Meeting/Tcon

Radiology Technical Committee