ISO8583:1987 Length Format
sheeho
Hello,
We are using jPOS to implement an ISO8583:1987 interface.
Our implementation uses an unmodified version of the ISO87BPackager class.
This packager uses BCD lengths on the LLVAR and LLLVAR fields within the ISO
message.
It appears that some of our customers are using character-encoded lengths
rather than BCD on these fields.
It is not clear to me whether the 1987 specification states that
character-encoded lengths only be used or whether it permits BCD or raw
binary.
Does anyone have a definitive answer on this or is it just a matter to be
treated on a case by case basis?
Thanks,
Oghie.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ISO8583%3A1987-Length-Format-tp26902187p26902187.html
Sent from the jPOS - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mark Salter
> It is not clear to me whether the 1987 specification states that
> character-encoded lengths only be used or whether it permits BCD or raw
> binary.
Do you have access to a copy of the standards?
>
> Does anyone have a definitive answer on this or is it just a matter to be
> treated on a case by case basis?
I would think it is on a use by use basis.
Are you in the position to make those using character lengths change if
you found that the standards said they should not be doing what they are
doing?
--
Mark
sheeho
Pretty much negotiable as we are in early days, both ourselves and customer
are in a position to change.
We would like to maintain a one-size-fits-all solution as ISO8583 is one of
a set of interfaces to the service and customization per customer on top of
this is likely to lead to maintenance headaches in the longer term.
We had settled on the out of the box ISO8583:1987 binary as:
a) we are relatively new to ISO853 and
b) this was exactly the format used by our initial customer.
Am looking to get a consensus on what form this generic offering should take
as a new customer is querying the use of the BCD length fields (but not the
BCD numeric fields themselves).
I am wondering whether we are heading for a succession of different
interpretations/implementations of the spec. in its compressed/binary form
or whether there is generally accepted interpretation of how lengths should
be represented?
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ISO8583%3A1987-Length-Format-tp26902187p26904007.html
chhil
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "jPOS Users" group.
Please see http://jpos.org/wiki/JPOS_Mailing_List_Readme_first
To post to this group, send email to jpos-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to jpos-users+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jpos-users