Re: ISO formatted messages are [probably] out of scope

On 2015-09-21 15:53, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> What do you mean by ISO?
> Are you referring to ISO 20022?

Yes.  And 8583

Anders

>
> On 20 September 2015 at 11:10, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Some recent findings which may be of interest...
>
>     The only time you are forced to use a specific message format is when you are dealing
>     with end-to-end security since an XML-signature cannot be converted to a JSON signature
>     to take an example.  But ISO doesn't define security at this level AFAIK.
>
>     Another reason why ISO-formatted messages [probably] are out of scope is that for existing
>     "pipes" it is enough to know (and provide) the right information bits.  So if a Web Payment
>     system defines card numbers in JSON as "cardNumber":"111122223333444", this property
>     only have to be converted to its ISO binary counterpart at the payment provider (who probably
>     supplies a nice API for that purpose to not burden their customers with difficult formatting issues).
>
>     For the possible inclusion of new "pipes", we are most likely talking about end-to-end security
>     solutions and these can use any suitable format although we probably want to stick to JSON.
>
>     WDYT?
>
>     Anders
>
>

Received on Monday, 21 September 2015 14:01:18 UTC