INM Transmission and Transport Action Items

Open Action Items. Each item may be edited individually.

• Back to Infrastructure and Messaging TC
• Switch to Other Action Items or INM Closed Action Items

ITEM: 178

Opened: 10-Jan-05 Old Item: 945

Guidelines for Attachments proposal status (MCCI)

• 20050329 INM Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Taskforce.
• 20060412, Paul Knapp, Open
  • Charlie McKay: Paul Knapp has taken over responsibility to briong this item to a close. Create a recommendation as to how Attachments should be used. Depends on outcomes of action item 110 (IIref data type issue).
• 20060509, Miroslav Koncar, open, MCCI
  • Miroslav: there are discrepancies between abstract DT spec and XML ITS that need to be solved. Need to document preferred way of doing things. THU Q1 should shed some light on the issue. Assign action item to Miroslav.
• 20060604, Still Open

ITEM: 958

Opened: 26-Jul-05 Old Item: 0

MCCI - Check preface (MCCI)

• 26-Jul-05 , Tony Julian , New , MCCI
  • 20050726: INM Telcon: Joann reported that HQ needs for us to include the previously balloted name in the preface. This document was originally balloted as a component of the Infrastructure Management document
• 13-Sep-05 , Tony Julian , Reviewed , MCCI
  • 20050913: INM WGM San Diego: no update.
• 28-Nov-05 , Tony Julian , Reviewed , MCCI
  • 20051128 INM Telcon: will be applied on next ballot.
  • 20050110: WGM: item will remain open as a reminder to the editor of the next release of MCCI.
• 20060605: open until next release of MCCI

ITEM: 978

Opened: 15-Sep-05 Old Item: 0

Work to add a new batch group class to the batch transmission wrapper. (MCCI)

• 15-Sep-05 , Penny Aitchson , Open , IM
  • 2005-09-15 SAN WGM: New action item. The new class will contain attributes such as batch ID. A new sequence number needs to be added to the current batch class as well. New dynamic models, interactions, etc. need to be documented.
• 20060509, Penny Aitchson , Open , MCCI
  • 20060507 INM out of cycle. Batch Transmission wrapper will be tranbsformed into a minimal transmission grouper. This action items should be discussed as part of the discussion of the NHS application syncing use-case of proposal 969.
  • 20060509 INM WGM: Pending reasessment of underlying issues by NHS/BT.
• 20060605: still in progress and being worked on

ITEM: 1003

Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0

Prepare Project Scope and RFI for ebXML (ebXML)

• 03-Oct-05 , Doug Pratt , New , ebXML
  • 20051003: Prepare Project Scope and RFI for ebXML Due Oct 17
• 20051115: Doug, open
  • Next ballot cycle
• 20060329: Doug, open
  • Ballot deadline for May 2006 was missed. Pubs material has been created/updated by Paul Knapp. Planned to have this up for ballot in September 2006.
• 20060605: Still waiting on Paul

ITEM: 1012

Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0

Inquire of Pubs and MNM as to the proper name for WSnnn (Webservices)

• 03-Oct-05 , Joann Larson , New , WSP
  • 20051003: INM Telcon: Reconciliation of negative line item 5 in WSP September 2005 ballot. Agreement reached that the WSnnn things (Implementation Guidelines) will be changed to a name that is consistent with similar instances in other domains. Need to follow-up with Pubs and MNM as to the proper name.
  • 20060410: Larson: This item remains open. Itis unclear which committee (Pubs, HDF or Conformance)should address the issue. I brought this issue to the attention of all 3 groups via a negative line item in their respective ballots last fall. It appeared that Pubs was going to include new language in the PFG, but that seems to have diappeared. KP will resubmit the negative line item on informative ballots in ballot in the May 2006 cycle which purport to provide requirements or guidance in this area. We will push for resolution of this At the San Antonio meeting.
• 20060605: Still Open

ITEM: 1014

Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0

Get MLLP negatives withdrawn (May2005 cycle) (MLLP)

• 03-Oct-05 , Tony Julian , New , MLLP
  • Post Reconcillation Package
• 20051114: still open
• 20060501: Changed from "Post reconciliation package" to "get negatives withdrawn". There are 5 open negative votes.
• 20060605: Open with guilt

ITEM: 1018

Opened: 10-Oct-05 Old Item: 0

Seek harmonization of definitions in glossary for Sender and Receiver. (Webservices)

• 10-Oct-05 , Joann Larson , New , WSP
  • 20051010: INM Telcon: Seek harmonization of definitions in glossary for Sender and Receiver. Specifically need to follow-up with Pubs. Roberto will send info to Joann.
• 20060110, Joann Larson, open, Webservices
  • 20060110: Phoenix WGM: Still open as above. Roberto will harmonize the definition within Transports. Joann will submit to HQ glossary keeper.
• 20060605: Still open

ITEM: 1019

Opened: 24-Oct-05

Add Messaging Adapter and Interaction Patterns as used in MCCI to the Glossary. (MCCI)

• 20051024, René Spronk, New
  • Work with pubs to add definitions to the glossary. MCCI R2 C1 Ballot reconcillation, database Items 4 and 5
• 20060329, René Spronk, Open
  • The committee (after reviewing the definitions on the Wiki) should request pubs to add these definitions to the glossary. Pubs to add these definitions to the glossary.
• 20060509, Miroslav, open
  • Definitions needs updating with INM out of cycle resuts
• 20060605: surprise to Miroslav - will work on it as he works on ATS issues

ITEM: 1026

• Opened 20051121

Add text to the ATS about Message Exchange Patterns, and remove from WS profile. (Webservices)

• 20051121, Roberto, new
  • This work item is in reference to Item 20 in the WS ballot, Section 3.3.1. New wording to be created jointly with Miroslav Koncar, editor of the ATS document.
• 20051212, Roberto, Open
  • Rene: Is this the equivalent of Transmission Pattern or Interaction Pattern ?
  • 20060324: It is the equivalent of Transmission Pattern. The wiki page has some wording related to MEPs.
• 20051212, Roberto, Open
  • 20060510: INM WGM: Wiki has some wording, has yet to be incorporated in ballot documents

ITEM: 1036

Opened: 20060109

Create Wiki paper on approaches to dealing with duplicate transmission (MCCI)

• 20060109, Rene Spronk, new
  • 20060109: Discussion: do we want HL7 to prescribe the way to deal with it? No one size fits all solution. Does the way to deal with duplicates depend on message infrastructure used? – No, that just affects the amount of lost messages. What is a valid reason to resend with the same message.id? – should one always use a new Message.id on a resend? Do we need a “this is a duplicate of message x” attribute? Create a list of pro and cons of various approaches. Replay messages obviously contain duplicate message.ids. Detection of duplicate order (via business ID) is different from a duplicate Transmission (message.id). From sender perspective: no application response [although one was expected], what should a sender do?
• 20060501, Rene Spronk, new
  • 20060501: See Duplicate Transmissions for discussion.
• 20060605: still open
• 20060821: added to TUE Q1 agenda of the Sep2006 WGM. Initial motions should be whether or not we (as HL7) want to make a statement about this issue, or leave it to implementers.

ITEM: 2008

Opened: 20060110

What are the security requirements for the messaging infrastructure? - Abstract Transport Spec, security items (ATS)

• 20060110, Glen Marshal, new, security
  • 20060110: Phoenix WGM: Add per Miroslav’s request. Needed to finalize the ATS document. What are the security requirements for the messaging infrastructure?
• 20060605: Doug to visit Glen today and find out where this is

ITEM: 2010

Opened: 20060110

Reconcile discrepancy between ATS and WSP regarding Reliable Messaging, ATS/Webservices profile (Webservices)

• 20060110, Roberto Ruggeri, New, Webservices/ATS
  • 20060110: Phoenix WGM: Item added to reconcile decision to make Reliable Messaging non-mandatory with the Abstract Transport Spec which requires “all” transports to be reliable.
• 20060605: Still open
  • 20060510: SAT WGM: Lengthy discussion, outcome: In the overall HL7 implementation, there needs to be reliability at all levels, up to and including the application level. Transport can handle reliability only up to the point of delivery (DESTINATION). Motion approved to craft language for the ATS to address this item.

ITEM: 2011

Opened: 20060112

Identify differences. (Points of divergence) between RAMP and HL7 WS profile. (Webservices)

• 20060112, Chris Ferris, new, transports/RAMP
  • 20060112 INM WGM: To identify differences. (Points of divergence) between RAMP and HL7 WS profile.
• 20060329, Chris Ferris, open, transports/RAMP
  • (via e-mail) Chris indicates he will create such a document and present it at the WGM.
• 20060510: Closed
  • 20060510: SAT WGM Not longer an InM action item.

ITEM: 2012

Opened: 20060112

To coordinate a determination effort whether RAMP is a profile that is of benefit to HL7, and if so, to ask the HL7 Board to recommend to an appropriate Standards Organization (e.g. WS-I) that they take RAMP up as a work item. (organizational)

• 20060112, Joann Larson, new, transports
  • 20060112 INM WGM: To coordinate a determination effort whether RAMP is a profile that is of benefit to HL7, and if so, to ask the HL7 Board to recommend to an appropriate Standards Organization (e.g. WS-I) that they take RAMP up as a work item.
• 20060510: Closed
  • 20060510: SAT WGM Update from WSI presented by Chris at out of cycle transports meeting.

ITEM: 2015

Opened: 20060412

Clarify how to use the Transmission and Control Act Wrappers

• 20060412, co-chairs, new, MCCI
  • 20060412: Added by J Larson following v3 Pubs Telcon. Pubs is asking InM to clarify the Transmission and Control Act wrappers so that authors/editors in other domains can properly use them. Specifically, they would like the following:
    • 1. An instance example of a transmisssion wrapper with fields populated that other committees can pick up and use (20060509: examples are on hl7.org website, search for “NE2005” in the library; there are initiatived to create a toll that creates examples)
    • 2. An instance example of Control Act with clear delineation of the fields that are domain specific
    • 3. Clear definition of attributes the next time we go to ballot (20060509: check if at least we have a description for all attributes)
    • 4. Maybe develop a Quick Start Guide like that developed by Structured Documents TC (20060509: Discussion: – scenario based description (with examples) of how MCCI is actually used, apply 80/20 rule)
    • I did mention that the InM co-chairs would be available for a breakfast meeting Tuesday morning at San Antonio with any persons seeking clarification on wrappers and other InM artifacts.

ITEM: 2016

Opened: 20060501

Fix grammar issue in MCCI R2 Preface of next ballot, related to MCCI R2 line-item 138

• 20060501, co-chairs, new, MMCI
  • For the MCCI preface related to batches: to replace “HL7 Query” with “'HL7 queries' in general” at the earliest convenient time, if the existing wording is used in the preface of the next ballot.
  • 20060821, will remain open, without updates, until such time MCCI is published again

ITEM: 2017

Opened: 20060508

Get hold of CCOW abstract specification related to HL7 Messaging Architecture

• 20060508, co-chairs, new, MCCI

ITEM: 2018

Opened: 20060509

to add wording to MCCI Preface to explain rationale for fixing acceptAckCode to ER.

• 20060509, Rene, new, MCCI
  • 20060509: INM WGM: added after discussing this requirement (again). Documentation should be clarified to ensure that future readers will not have the same questions.
  • 20060821: will remain open, without updates, until such time as MCCI is published again.

ITEM: 2019

Opened: 20060509

Document that MIL may support fragmentation in the ATS document, ATS

• 20060509, Miroslav, new, ATS
  • (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.", 20060509 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.

ITEM: 2020

Opened: 20060510

Create glossary definition for Messaging Protocol and Session

• 20060510, Miroslav, new, ATS

ITEM: 2021

Opened: 20060510

Removable Media is for message transport

• 20060510, Doug, new, removable media
  • Remove from removable media text any mention of (naked documents) being stored directly on the media

ITEM: 2022

Opened: 20060510

Remove all hardware and filesystem specific requirements from the removable media ballot

• 20060510, Doug, new, removable media

ITEM: 2023

Opened: 20060619

Get negatives withdrawn for ATS

• 20060619, Doug, new, ATS
  • Post ballot rec, follow up to get all votes withdrawn