--- "Clemens, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg, MLLP would never suffice in a serial environment.
All I claimed is that it appeared to be modeled on serial protocols,
not that it WAS a serial protocol.
> Take a look
> at a
> good serial protocol for HL7 like x3.28 and what it took to imp
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gregory Woodhouse
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:59 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Setting up HL LOGICAL LINKs problem -
Noresponse
On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Gary Monger wrote:
On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Gary Monger wrote:
I wouldn't describe it as a false sense of security. Most seem to
know the
risks, and I'm sure many have even seen the listener taken just as you
describe. The concern is not "other sites" but other systems on
the LAN,
and it may be the clie
TED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory
Woodhouse
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 6:38 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Setting up HL LOGICAL LINKs problem -
Noresponse
On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Gary Monger wrote:
> Some sites like the s
On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Gary Monger wrote:
Some sites like the single connection. The thought being that
there is less
risk of an inadvertent connection from a test system.
By the same token, another site could "grab" the listener during a
restart. But perhaps more to the point, re
to send a commit ack. Some don't even read the MSH.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K.S.
Bhaskar
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 9:55 AM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Setting up HL LOGICAL
