By Robert R. However, the standard also recognizes that the technology could appear in other forms. Type A, B, and FeliCa cards use different modulation methods and coding schemes. For example, this part of the standard describes how a device polls looks for potential connection and then initiates a command to start communications. Type A, B, and FeliCa cards use different protocol initialization procedures. Even though Parts 3 and 4 of the standard tells you how communications work, the techniques used have patent protection.
|Published (Last):||13 June 2008|
|PDF File Size:||1.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This separation is not relevant anymore since you can have type A or type B memory or microprocessor cards, and we ended up with two competing technologies in the same standard.
I do agree, this is a bad thing tm to be in a standard. Am I right or did I miss something? Post as a guest Name. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered.
There are usually some patterns like one vendor has some prefix and then prefix of card type — So it looks to me more like somebody had bad day than calculated trough decision. Obviously, no hash is free of collisions, as long as the hash is shorter than the hashed data — but the probability of something randomly changing the hashed data to false data with the same hash is so small, it can be neglected in practice.
So somebody will come and will start to poke into readers to see if it not breaks something. Email Required, but never shown. Some limitations quickly occurred: I found a nice answer to my question here: Sign up using Facebook.
Also generation of UIDs is usually not made in Crypographically friendly way e. Sign up using Facebook. This problem existed in the version of the standard and was corrected in Amendment 1 in by adding the clause:.
Look at hash functions, for example. Can I find more details somewhere? The Innovatron company had working microprocessor cards, so their technology was integrated as type B in the standard. ISO anti-collision protocol is not correct Ask Question.
I know it is very low probability 1: This problem existed in the version of the standard and was corrected in Amendment 1 in by adding the clause: Practical standards do practical implications. Maybe in an effort to phase ixo type A? Sign up using Email and Password. This answer talks about competing technologies brought forward by two different companies: TOP 10 Related.
ISO 14443-3 PDF