This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Fragmenting Large Transmissions"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (new page) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*20060510 WGM: Motion "The INM committee decides not to support a mechanism to fragment large messages. Any fragmentation for transmission/transport purpose should be dealt with within the Message Infrastructure Layer. The receiving HL7 Application has the option of refusing an interaction because of its size." (Motion by Rene/Miroslav, 13-1-0). | *20060510 WGM: Motion "The INM committee decides not to support a mechanism to fragment large messages. Any fragmentation for transmission/transport purpose should be dealt with within the Message Infrastructure Layer. The receiving HL7 Application has the option of refusing an interaction because of its size." (Motion by Rene/Miroslav, 13-1-0). | ||
− | **Discussion: Miroslav: fragmentation is present in v2 (as a site negotiation option), problematic in v3. Fragmentation is a post-serialization ITS specific issue. Document that MIL may support fragmentation in the ATS document. | + | **Discussion: Miroslav: fragmentation is present in v2 (as a site negotiation option), problematic in v3. Fragmentation is a post-serialization ITS specific issue. Document that [[MIL]] may support fragmentation in the [[ATS]] document. |
Revision as of 12:49, 8 July 2006
Is there a need for a general mechanism for Fragmenting Large Transmissions (messages as well as batches). The UK uses a max. 25Mb size of individual transactions.
- 20060510 WGM: Motion "The INM committee decides not to support a mechanism to fragment large messages. Any fragmentation for transmission/transport purpose should be dealt with within the Message Infrastructure Layer. The receiving HL7 Application has the option of refusing an interaction because of its size." (Motion by Rene/Miroslav, 13-1-0).