Hello, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 20:10, Ludovic Rousseau <[email protected]> wrote: > One particularly missing member is Microsoft. Microsoft was a core > member for a long time but has now disappeared from the PCSC workgoup > list.
Doesn't this seriously decrease the workgroup's ability to influence things, given the current practice and status quo of pcsc-lite vs MS? > If, as an PC/SC application author, you think something is missing in > the PC/SC standard just tell me. I will try to propose it for > inclusion. Organizational: - provide the specs in a way that can be diff-ed for changes. Would be lovely :) Meaningful questions/suggestions (some probably reflect my bad homework on the subject, as they might not be in the scope of this workgroup): - Work out firewalling and settle on a specific SW for "command firewalled" status (intersection between CCID/firmware level and PC/SC) - Who actually defines the SCard* API? What about the "card groups, reader groups, card databases" and whatnot is in MS SCard* scope? - Bridging with USB/CCID folks to define and enable features and requirements coming from applications (through PC/SC, like OpenSC et al) and uniformly take them to the device firmware (things like custom display texts, feedback on keypresses (dangerous!) etc) by extending CCID. - Creating some kind of standard/certification for smart card readers that is a mark of quality and interoperability, setting certain requirements for qualification that can be verified by independent third party validators (maybe something like FIPS, but with less heavy impact on cost and deadlines) so that there would be no bogus readers on the market in the future. Buying a 50€ smart card reader and discovering that it does not accept my 10 digit PIN code is not nice. Or finding that a "secure PIN entry" device is actually pushing data to USB bus is also a bad sign. Best, Martin _______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
