The schemes with which I am involved, using the UK national spec for transport ticketing (the ITSO spec), expect that collisions between cards will cause the terminal to stop, and that a card becoming 'unreachable momentarily' will have the transaction terminated prematurely - the most usual case for a card not responding is that it has lost power and thus has to be re-initialised (including going through the anti-collision sequence).
As for parallel sessions with different readers (or even with one reader), I have never heard anyone suggesting that a contactless card will be required to operate like that in the schemes being designed today. We are really looking at one logical channel to the card, and thus selecting an app causes any previously selected app to be terminated. I know that may mean opening one app, closing it and opening another, then closing that and re-opening the first one (e.g. on a bus: open the transport app to help decide what to charge, close it, open a payment app, close it, open the transport app to complete the ticket sale - that needs a user environment in which the card can be put on a tray or in a slot ). The ITSO spec uses a new concept of independently supplied datasets in one app on the card, so tickets and a payment function all go in the one app on the card (and in principle these 'products' could include executable code rather than just data).
But, yes, there is still work to be done - PC/SC V2 claims that it is starting to show how to do it.
Peter
Peter Williams wrote:
concerning contactless, the windows kernel library for IFDs requires that ioctls are queued, while the card is suspended or - in the case of wireless - unreachable momentarily.
contacless for security access cards was one thing. Contactless for uP cards in the general environment is another, especially if one is expecting the card to maintain parallel sessions with different readers.
I think we have a fair amount of work to do in PCSC-lite, for wireless support (beyond demos).
From: Peter Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: MUSCLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MUSCLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Muscle] OT: Help, please: SCM 331-DI
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:27:07 +0100
We here in the UK are trying to get hold of a small number of SCM 331-DI (contact and contactless interface),
<snip>
_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
