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

== ITEM: 55 == Opened: 27-Sep-04 Old Item: 302

Check for vocabulary gaps in V3 Infrastructure Management (MCCI)

• 09-Nov-04 , Andrew Hinchley , Open , IM
• 28-Nov-05 , Andrew Hinchley , Open , IM
  • 20051128_ Telcon No Update
• 20060412: Andrew: remains open, still plans to do this.

== ITEM: 74 == Opened: 29-Sep-04 Old Item: 321

Clarify concept of session in context of transport documents (as opposed to session as defined by SIGSecure) (Transports)

• 07-Dec-04 , Andrew Hinchley , Open , Trans
• 28-Nov-05 , Andrew Hinchley , Reviewed , Trans
  • 20051128 Telcon no status change.
• 20060110, Andrew Hinchley, ATS
  • 20060110 InM WGM Phoenix: Clarification of concept belongs in ATS. Defer to future joint meeting between InM ATS and Security TC
• 20060412: Andrew: can be closed, superceded by later action items related to MEP and Interaction Patterns.

ITEM: 110

Opened: 02-May-05 Old Item: 407

Complete the documentation for Option #2 and resolve the format of the URN (MCCI)

• 02-May-05 , Charlie McCay , New , Attachments and II/IIRef ** Noorwijkerhout
• 28-Nov-05 , Charlie McCay , Open , MCCI
  • 20051128 INM Telcon: Move to MCCI
• 20060110, Charlie McKay, Open
  • 20060110: WGM: Probably URI instead of URN – related to IIRef discussion. No update.

ITEM: 178

Opened: 10-Jan-05 Old Item: 945

Guidelines for Attachments proposal status (MCCI)

• 12-Jan-05 , Charlie McCay , Closed , XML - A
  • 20050112 Added by Larson in response to email thread between INM, CDA and XML.

20050329 INM Telcon: This is being followed by the Attachments Taskforce cited in item 217. This is a multi-group issue: XML, IM

• 05-May-05 , Charlie McKay , Open , XML-A
  • 20050505: INM WGM Noordwijkerhout: Gregor has produced some documentation. Need agenda time at the next meeting.
• 15-Sep-05 , Charlie McKay , Open , XML-A
  • 20050915 Need agenda time at Scottsdale meeting
• 28-Nov-05 , Charlie McKay , Open , MCCI
  • 20051128 INM Telcon Move to MCCI
• 20060110 , Charlie McKay , Open
  • 20060110: WGM: still open, Charlie McKay has stated he’ll work with INM to solve this within a reasonable time.

== 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.

== 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.
• 15-Sep-05 , Penny Aitchson , Open , MCCI
  • 20051128 INM Telcon: Move to MCCI, discuss in Phoenix.

== 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.

== 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.

== ITEM: 1014 == Opened: 03-Oct-05 Old Item: 0

Post MLLP reconcillation package (MLLP)

• 03-Oct-05 , Tony Julian , New , MLLP
  • Post Reconcillation Package
• 20051114: still open

== 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.

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
• 20051126, René Spronk, Open
  • See INM Glossary for draft definitions. Need definitions first, then talk to pubs about adding them to the glossary.
• 20060110, René Spronk, Open
  • 20060110: WGM: No update, WIKI contains draft descriptions..
• 20060329, René Spronk, Open
  • The committee (after reviewing the definitions on the Wiki) should request pubs to add these definitions to the glossary.

ITEM: 1020

Opened: 24-Oct-05

Harmonize V3 Guide descriptions of Wrappers with the current infrastructure ballot (MCCI).

• 20051024, René Spronk, New
  • MCCI R2 C1 Ballot Reconcillation of database Item 14. This new release of MCCI is (by the very fact that it is a new release) out of sync with the v3guide. Work with publishing to change the v3guide.
• 20060339, René Spronk, open
  • See Message Wrappers section of the v3Guide. This is the current text which will require significant editing.

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.

ITEM: 1036

Opened: 20060109

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

• 20060109, Rene Spronk, new
  • 20050109: 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?

ITEM: 2001

Opened: 20060112

Committee consider the mechanisms to support the fragmentation of a large message. (MCCI)

• 20060112, Rene Spronk, new
  • If the committee decides not to support this in the standard at this point in time – it should recommend possible alternatives options. (Mark Tucker/Jeff Jacobs 13-0-1 Jan06 WGM THU Q4)

ITEM: 2004

Opened: 20060320

Compile list of MCCI trigger event names that are candidates for renaming. (MCCI)

• 20060320, Paul Biron, new
  • Line item 7 against the MCCI September 2005 ballot section 4.3.2, submitted by Paul Biron was found Not Persuasive. It was determined that a number of names would need to be changed, if the "Send Response Batch" Trigger name were to be renamed. Paul will compile a list of trigger events names that he thinks should be changed. Will be posted prior to the out-of-cycle meeting.

ITEM: 2007

Opened: 20060110

Are Gateways always trusted? - Abstract Transport Spec, security items (ATS)

• 20060110, unsassigned, new, ATS/security
  • 20060110: Phoenix WGM: Issue: Are the Gateways always trusted? Is there a use case or a possibility of a highly distributed environment where Gatewys are *not* trusted? Need to resolve ATS Line item 52
  • 20060412: Miroslav: see Gateway section. The Gateways are like any other HL7 applications, and the metter of trust depends on the business rules, application and network configuration. Any further discussion falls out of the scope of HL7 ATS document. Suggest adding the text as proposed in Gateway section to the ATS document, and closing the action item.

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?

ITEM: 2009

Opened: 20060110

Schedule calls for continued ballot resolution. - Abstract Transport Spec, security items (Security)

• 20060110, Glen Marshal, new, security
  • 20060110: PHX WGM: Added action item.

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.

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.

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.

ITEM: 2013

Opened: 20060112

Discuss RAMP and delta-document as created by Chris Ferris (organizational)

• 20060112, co-chairs, new, transports
  • by (a) schedule agenda time joint with HL7 WS profile topic during the next WGM, and (b) schedule special-Telcon, with WS knowledgeable people attending, to discuss RAMP.
• 20060329 E-mail has been sent to chrisfer@us.ibm.com (the e-mail address as contained in the minutes is wrong, it identifies a different "Chris" within IBM USA)
  • 20060329 (via e-mail) Chris indicates he will create such a document and present it at the WGM. Reminder to add this as an agenda item has been added to the draft San Antonio agenda.

ITEM: 2014

Opened:

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
    • 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
    • 4. Maybe develop a Quick Start Guide like that developed by Structured Documents TC
    • 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.