Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.protocols.dicom
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Should a Storage Commitment SCU be able to handle N-EVENT-REPORT request before N-ACTION response?
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Victor Derks  
View profile  
 More options May 3 2012, 5:31 pm
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dicom
From: Victor Derks <vbade...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, May 3 2012 5:31 pm
Subject: Should a Storage Commitment SCU be able to handle N-EVENT-REPORT request before N-ACTION response?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
When a Storage Commitment SCP uses a different association to send the
N-EVENT-REPORT request the N-EVENT request may be received earlier
then the N-ACTION response. This would be a rare situation but not
unthinkable as messages on different DICOM associations are not
related.

When a SCP uses the same association to send the N-EVENT-REPORT
request it has 2 options:

OPION A:
- Send N-ACTION response
- Send N-EVENT-REPORT request

OPTION B:
- Send N-EVENT-REPORT request
- Send N-ACTION response

Must the SCP follow option A or is option B also legal? Reading PS 3.4
it seems that the logical order is option A but should the SCU reject
option B as a protocol\service violation?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Marco Eichelberg  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2012, 3:31 am
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dicom
From: Marco Eichelberg <eichelberg_nos...@offis.de>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:31:13 +0200
Local: Fri, May 4 2012 3:31 am
Subject: Re: Should a Storage Commitment SCU be able to handle N-EVENT-REPORT request before N-ACTION response?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Victor,

I would say that both options are legal since the sequencing of messages
over multiple associations is not defined in the DICOM standard.
In particular, even if the SCP selects option A, the same kind of
race condition could cause the SCU to receive the N-EVENT-REPORT-RSP
before the N-ACTION-RSP, i.e. effectively "see" option B.
I would, therefore, argue that failure to correctly handle this
situation would be a failure of the SCU. If the SCU supports incoming
associations, then it also needs to be able to handle possible
race conditions.

Best regards,
Marco Eichelberg


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google