SMART Permission Tickets, published by . This guide is not an authorized publication; it is the continuous build for version 0.1.0 built by the FHIR (HL7® FHIR® Standard) CI Build. This version is based on the current content of https://github.com/jmandel/smart-permission-tickets-wip/ and changes regularly. See the Directory of published versions

Open Questions

Every open design question in this specification is listed here with a stable ID. Questions live as callouts on the page where they matter; this registry exists so you can see them all, reference them in discussion ("OQ-5B"), and track what got decided. To weigh in, raise a question on an Argonaut call, in the Zulip stream, or as a GitHub issue, citing the ID.

Open

ID	Question	Where
OQ-2	Do future non-patient subjects (Group, subjectless) need an explicit ticket-level scope mode?	Architecture
OQ-3	Should the sensitivity profile be incorporated into specific ticket types, and what does each direction need before implementation?	Architecture
OQ-CUSTODIAN	Should data_holder_filter gain an enforce-or-reject custodian-scoped form once vendors can attribute records to custodian organizations?	Architecture
OQ-UC2-VERIFY	Should each UC2 ticket say how the issuer verified the delegation authority, or are per-code issuer obligations plus framework audit enough?	Use Case Catalog
OQ-3A	Is the marker-scope plus CRUDS-scopes approach expressive enough for requesting tickets at issuance, or is a structured parameter needed?	Proposal 003
OQ-3B	Should issuance endpoint hints reuse the SMART Brands Endpoint format instead of a custom shape?	Proposal 003
OQ-3C	What is the issuer-issued access token in the issuance flow actually for?	Proposal 003
OQ-P4A	Should the continuation claim be promoted into the base claims set once implementations validate it?	Proposal 004
OQ-5A	How does a Data Holder withhold without revealing that withheld data exists?	Proposal 005
OQ-5B	Which sensitivity vocabularies should early implementations support?	Proposal 005
OQ-5C	Does unknown sensitivity classification need explicit behavior beyond conservative withholding?	Proposal 005
OQ-5D	What must be true (authorization UX, classification precision, framework rules) before a Data Holder honors release_authorized for a restricted category?	Proposal 005
OQ-UC4-WRITE	Should social-care write access be modeled at all, or split into a narrower ticket type?	Future Use Cases

Resolved

ID	Question	Decision
RQ-CNF	Use standard cnf.jkt (RFC 7800) or a unified presenter_binding claim?	Keep presenter_binding: one discriminated union covers both binding modes; key-binding semantics are identical to cnf.jkt, so thumbprint code is reusable. (June 2026)
RQ-DISCOVERY	Should Data Holders advertise which access constraints they can enforce?	No discovery field. All three access dimensions are defined so enforcement uses existing server machinery, and conforming Data Holders support all of them. (June 2026)
RQ-DATA-PERIOD	What does data_period enforcement mean concretely?	Each resource type has a designated standard date search parameter; servers behave as if every search carried the corresponding ge/le constraints. See Data Period Enforcement. (June 2026)
RQ-FALLBACK	Which gaps justify the interactive fallback in Proposal 001?	Exactly one: subject resolution failure. Returning interaction_required after successful resolution is prohibited. (June 2026)
RQ-SENSITIVE-BASE	Should the base ticket carry a sensitive-data flag?	No. Removed from the base kernel; sensitivity handling lives in the Proposal 005 profile, which models both withholding and release authorization. (May 27, 2026 call)
RQ-BEARER	Are access tokens issued after redemption sender-constrained?	No. They are ordinary OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens; presenter binding constrains ticket redemption only. Deployments may add DPoP or mutual-TLS. (June 2026)
RQ-FILTER-PROJECTION	Do category_any_of/code_any_of project into SMART scope strings?	No. The scope surface carries resource-type and interaction grain only; Data Holders enforce the filters from the ticket. (June 2026)

Parked

ID	Question	Status
PQ-UC7	Provider-to-provider consult ticket type	Parked: the natural issuer is the same system the specialist would query, so the value of a signed artifact is unclear. See Future Use Cases.