Page 296 - Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)

APPENDIX B: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR IDENTIFICATION 281

the finer resolution that is today’s commercial standard. Resolution: Still
pending.
7. MIR Clarification: The Multiple Image Request (MIR) transaction does not
specify how to ask for multiple requests, nor how the response should look.
For example, to request images from the 2nd and 3rd candidates on
the SRT candidate list, is it correct to insert two State ID Numbers, e.g.,
2.015:MD1002>MD2345*? And is the response to this request separate
IRRs for each candidate that reference the same MIR? Resolution: Still
pending.
8. EFTS Readability/Sample Messages: It took hours to decipher the EFTS
fields. Sample messages from an older version of EFTS proved quite
helpful. It would be useful to re-include them as a permanent part of the
EFTS document. Resolution: Still pending.
9. FNR Delimiter Discrepancy: Fingerprint Number (FNR), Field 2.057 has
conflicting descriptions of separators. An RS was used for purposes of our
testing, but this needs to be clarified. Resolution: Still pending.
10. TCR as Mandatory Field: The Transaction Control Reference (TCR), Field
1.10 references the originator’s Transaction Control Number (TCN). This
is not listed as mandatory for responses, but seems that it should be. Reso-
lution: Still pending.

Expanded Scope of EFTS (Cross-Jurisdictional Use):

1. Candidate Names (SRT & IRR): Many operational sites do not keep a
“Names” database in the AFIS system although the trend is toward integra-
tion. The EFTS calls out for mandatory fields with Names. For instance, Field
2.064 in the SRT asks for ID numbers and names. The EFTS would need to
allow such an occurrence and describe how it would be handled, i.e., merely
skip the R/S separator field and list ID numbers separated by a U/S sepa-
rator, or use R/S separators with a blank or “No Name” as a place holder.
The IRR also calls for a mandatory Name (NAM) field, 2.018. This would
need to change to optional. Resolution: Still pending.
2. Local ID Use: There is no accommodation for a Local Identification
number. We used the State ID (SID) field (2.015), but that field is limited
to a maximum of 10 characters, while local IDs may be more than 10 char-
acters. We need to either expand the definition of 2.015 to include local IDs
or designate a new tag for a local ID. Resolution: Still pending.
3. MIME Messages: Some vendors preferred to put text messages with their
MIME message (a valuable debug tool for programmers), but for other
vendors? this created a conflict in their software. The standards don’t address
this. Resolution: Still pending.