Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nested TLV ISO fields #120

Open
csvdf opened this issue Apr 6, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Nested TLV ISO fields #120

csvdf opened this issue Apr 6, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@csvdf
Copy link

csvdf commented Apr 6, 2022

Just wondering if you have considered supporting nested TLV where a bitmap field is itself comprised of a set of TLV fields
An example would be found in this Elavon spec under Field 60
Elavon spec

Would be good if they were also externally configurable as currently implemented in your customFormats

Thanks

@zemuldo
Copy link
Owner

zemuldo commented Apr 6, 2022

@csvdf The Elavon spec you shared is not familiar. Please provide a more simple elaborate example of what it looks like, I used this library a while back and am rusty on ISO 8583 - I just still maintain for community.
Is this kind of TLV part of ISO 8583? If not part of the standard the probably not a good idea.

@riliwanrabo
Copy link

@zemuldo is this related to issue #122 where the Field 127 is a nested field?

@geNAZt
Copy link

geNAZt commented Jul 1, 2024

Hello,

i also have this "special" requirement. Since field 60 in the spec is marked as reserved for national use it can contain basically everything. We reuse that field to stuff custom objects into it. This is encoded similar to field 127. Currently i tried to set it like this:

"60": "1=92", "60.92": token,

Custom formats:

"60": { ContentType: 'ans', Label: 'Reserved for private use', LenType: 'llllllvar', MaxLen: 999999 }, "60.92": { ContentType: 'b', Label: 'WLP Token', LenType: 'llvar' }

Without any luck. The only thing i can think of is use a second ISO message without MTI (so only bitmap and field data). Don't know if that is a valid solution though

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants