Closed rainer010 closed 1 year ago
I checked the ISO-8583 v2003 documentation and the field 19 is not defined. On the other hand, both major card schemes use this field for the same purpose with the same semantic. Hence, I thought it might be good to leave it there.
What do you think ? @ar
The same reasoning could be applied to the PR #13
I checked the ISO-8583 v2003 documentation and the field 19 is not defined. On the other hand, both major card schemes use this field for the same purpose with the same semantic. Hence, I thought it might be good to leave it there.
I see DE 19 as Country code acquiring institution in ISO8583 v2003, in table B.1.
I see DE 19 as Country code acquiring institution in ISO8583 v2003, in table B.1.
So IMHO it is ok to add them, same goes for DE's 009
and 010
of #13, in fact that PR was from the ISO 8583 v2003 spec.
I see DE 19 as Country code acquiring institution in ISO8583 v2003, in table B.1.
So IMHO it is ok to add them, same goes for DE's
009
and010
of #13, in fact that PR was from the ISO 8583 v2003 spec.
You are right, to summarize the related PRs:
field | Location in standard spec | PR |
---|---|---|
9 | Table 3.1, page 22 | #13 |
10 | Table 3.1, page 22 | #13 |
19 | Table 3.1, page 22 | #20 |
I agree with you, these fields should be added.
This field contains the code identifying the country of the acquiring institution.