Michael,
This reminds me that there is a bug in the ISO error handling for
T=1. Whether you have encountered it, I don't know, but I will ask
an associate of ours if he can have a look at it for you.
Regards,
Peter Tomlinson
Iosis, Bristol BS7 9AA, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded by: "Post Master" <internet>
Forwarded to: pm:pwt
Date forwarded: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:20:55 +0100
Date sent: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:19:39 +0000
From: Michael Renzmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ML: muscle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ML: Towitoko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MUSCLE T=1
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi.
>
> Anyone here who is keen in the T=1 protocol? I�ve a
> problem understanding the documentation (which is not
> the official ISO/IEC-specification) regarding the
> "block chaining" mechanism, especially in case of an
> error.
>
> As it is very difficult for me to describe the
> problem in english in a way that other persons could
> understand without having to be able to read my minds, I�ll give an
> example:
>
> A new communication sequence starts between terminal
> and card. Terminal wants to send a command with an APDU
> larger than the ifsc, so block chaining is used for
> this. Terminal sends the first i-block, send sequence
> counter is 0, so N(S) in the PCB of the i-block is
> 0, too.
>
> The card tells the terminal, that the checksum
> indicates an error in the received block (it returnes a
> r-block with bit 1 set in its PCB), so the Terminal has
> to resend the first block.
>
> First question: is bit 5 of r-block�s PCB set
> (indicating the sequence counter of the next expected
> block) or not (indicating the number of the last block
> that was by the terminal)?
>
> Second question: does the terminal increase its send
> sequence counter while resending the last block or not?
>
> The next problem concerns the answers to some s-blocks.
> For example, the card requests a change of the ifsc and
> tells the new size in the information field (1 byte).
> What structure must the answer to this request have?
> Is it ok, if the terminal just returns a s-block with
> the "answer to ifsc request" bits set and without
> repeating the new size of the ifsc? And what about
> the answer to wtx-requests?
>
>
> Maybe anyone could give me some hints? Thanks a lot in
> advance.
>
> Bye, Mike
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> Linux Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E.
> (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment)
> http://www.linuxnet.com/smartcard/index.html
> ***************************************************************
>
***************************************************************
Linux Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E.
(Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment)
http://www.linuxnet.com/smartcard/index.html
***************************************************************
