Those GSM documents are prescriptive specifications, not standards like 7816, and they are supported by a mandatory product testing regime. That is why they can and do result in interoperable products.

FINREAD, etc, are also specifications. Nobody is (yet) seriously building to the FINREAD spec, but instead some are using parts of it as a way to design payment terminals - but the FINREAD compliance is not being tested. CEPS isn't being used - its too expensive to operate to that spec, and transaction times are reported to be too long when cross-border working is needed. eSign is a component spec loking for a market, and not designed to fit into truly secure transaction methods. eID isn't a spec yet; the best we have yet in this area is the OSCIE Volume 3 IAS modelling exercise, and the eAuth CWA (due to be signed off this Friday) doesn't take the technical material any further. ITSO is a specification for interoperable transport ticketing, but its not complete, not debugged, and there is no significant funding to support it - but some parts of ITSO are tested and do deliver interoperability.

Peter

Scott Guthery wrote:
The standards deliver interoperabilty.  It is ignorning the standards
that doesn't.

The GSM SIM is based on enforced smart card standards and shows a
very high level of interoperabilty ... and profitability, I might
add. Without the SIM most card companies would have gone bust years
ago.

Europeans employ the canard about ISO/IEC 7816 being unbuildable to
create a new European smart card standard about every six months
(FINAID, CEPS, eSign, eID, ITSO, etc.) and none of these have proven
any more interoperable that ISO/IEC 7816 so it can't be the
standards. Maybe it has to do with compliance testing and
enforcement?

IMHO, as always.

Cheers, Scott

-----Original Message----- From: Nils Larsch
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 2/9/2005 5:53 AM To:
MUSCLE Cc: Subject: Re: [Muscle] Some questions about PKCS#15


Peter Tomlinson wrote: ... > Sadly, in the smart card world the
standards do not deliver > interoperability, but instead enable
suppliers to compete in the market > for closed schemes. well closed
schemes are more profitable, you can sell the smartcards _and_ the
software necessary to use them ... Nils _______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle



_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle



_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle

Reply via email to