NISTIR 7242

Summary of April 2005 ANSI/NIST 

Fingerprint Standard Update Workshop

R. Michael McCabe

Michael D. Garris

 
NISTIR 7242

Summary of April 2005 ANSI/NIST 

Fingerprint Standard Update 

Workshop

R. Michael McCabe

Michael D. Garris

Information Technology Laboratory

Information Access Division

July 2005

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

Michelle O’Neill, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Hratch G. Semerjian, Acting Director

 
Summary of April 2005 ANSI/NIST 

Fingerprint Standard Update Workshop 

R. Michael McCabe and Michael D. Garris 

Image Group, Information Access Division, Information Technology Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Abstract 

This workshop 1 was convened to chart the future of the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 

fingerprint data exchange standard. This report is intended to provide a summary of that 

workshop. The current and future requirements and capabilities of existing stakeholders 

were first examined. Developments in information technology including eXtensible 

Markup Language (XML) were described and their potential relationship to the standard 

demonstrated. Approaches were presented for harmonizing this standard with other 

biometric standards. Additional proposals for improving the standard were introduced 

and a roadmap to upgrading the current version of the standard was generated. 

Keywords: fingerprints, face, XML, FBI, standards, compression, JPEG, scan resolution 

1 Introduction 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in cooperation with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), conducted an ANSI/NIST Fingerprint Standard 

Update Workshop at NIST in Gaithersburg Maryland on April 26th-28th, 2005. It was 

attended by over 120 representatives from federal, state, and local government agencies, 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and related biometric technology 

vendors, consultants, and other interested parties. This workshop was held to review 

the existing American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for the electronic 

exchange of fingerprint and other identification information titled "Data Format for the 

Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial, & Scar Mark & Tattoo (SMT) Information" 

(ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000)2

. The goal of the workshop was to: 

• Determine if the current version of this standard should be withdrawn due to 

obsolescence or lack of use 

• Reaffirm the standard in its present form, or 

• Create a new version with enhancements and additional features. 

The three day meeting can be viewed as four related parts. The first part reviewed 

existing systems and requirements, including overviews by the major stakeholders of 

 

1 http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/index.html 2

 Available from http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/vip/fing/fing.html ; also referenced as NIST Special 

Publication SP 500-245 

 
their operations and application of the ANSI/NIST standard. Emerging services by the 

FBI and a description of new processing initiatives from NIST were also presented. The 

second part reviewed the existing ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 standard and its relationships 

to the work being accomplished in the ANSI INCITS M13

 biometrics committee. The 

third part focused on advances in technology. A detailed panel discussion addressed a 

roadmap for the potential merging of XML into the next version of the standard. 

Additional contributions were introduced for the use of third level friction ridge details for 

automated matching of fingerprints and requirements for higher scanning resolution. 

The final part of the workshop was devoted to presenting specific proposals, evaluating 

each proposal, and determining the subsequent actions to be taken regarding their 

incorporation into the standard. Copies of each presentation can be viewed and/or 

downloaded from: http://fingerprint.nist.gov/standard/index.html . 

2 Existing Applications and Requirements 

Vance Hitch, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Justice (DOJ), provided 

the opening remarks for the workshop. He set the stage for the workshop by stressing 

that the DOJ has a greater need for technology and standards than ever before. This 

requirement for data, fingerprint, and other biometric standards is the key to 

interoperability. Developed standards will provide the vehicle to coordinate efforts with 

federal agencies including Department of State (DOS), Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DoD), and "international partners" such as the 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Interpol for prosecuting crime and 

protecting against the threat of terrorism. 

2.1 Major Stakeholders 

This opening was followed by a panel of major ANSI/NIST standard stakeholders. Each 

panelist highlighted the importance of the standard by providing overviews of their 

systems and describing the use of the data exchange standard in their normal 

operations. 

• Gerd Hardt, the Interpol representative, stated that the ANSI/NIST standard is 

critical to the international exchange of fingerprint data. Since 1998 the Interpol 

AFIS Expert Group (IAEG) has promoted a standard method based on the 

ANSI/NIST standard for AFIS data exchange across country borders. 

• Tom Hopper provided the FBI perspective stating that the standard facilitated 

transitioning to a paperless environment and it promoted the sharing of criminal 

history, fingerprint, and mugshot data at federal, state, and local levels. The 

Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) totally relies on the 

standard for the storage and processing of the 47 million criminal records online. 

These are searched against an average of 80K transactions per day. 

• Neal Latta from DHS and the US-VISIT program explained that the standard had 

been used for the transmission of 2.4 million criminal and 3.0 million civilian 

 

3

 www.incits.org 

2
tenprint transactions to the FBI's IAFIS. This is in addition to the 24 million twofinger transactions processed against their own database since 2004. 

• Charles Wilson(NIST) then presented an overview of the Patriot Act's mandate 

for biometric identification and verification testing that has been performed by 

NIST over the past two years. Many different levels of fingerprint image quality 

are included in the databases consisting of more than 128 million fingerprints 

from over 18 million subjects that are used in the testing programs. Conclusions 

from the FpVTE[1], SDK[2], and IDENT[3] tests were presented. 

2.2 New Processing Capabilities 

The FBI's IAFIS was put into full operation in July, 1999. It is now scheduled to be 

enhanced with a series of upgrades. FBI staff members overviewed these changes. 

• Tracy Pacoe(FBI) reported on initiatives contained in the "Next Generation 

IAFIS" program. Major features included the automation of quality control 

checks in transaction submissions, an advanced interstate photo mugshot 

system, and a national palm print system. 

 

• Scott Swann(FBI) went into more detail on the national palm print system which 

will have the functionality to receive, store, and search palm prints. The new 

system will also encompass "major case" prints. The point was brought up that 

the standard will have to be expanded to include codes, descriptions, and 

dimensions for these types of prints. 

• Tom Hopper concluded the FBI's new initiatives with a description of a new 

service for civil background checks. This is based on the simultaneous capture 

using a tall sensor of the four sequence flats from each hand and the single 

capture of the two flat thumbs. Each finger is segmented and a quality score 

assigned to it. The Type-14 record will be used for the submission of the 

composite flat images. IAFIS will separate the four flats into individual images 

based on coordinate positions determined during the segmentation process. 

Advantages of this new process will include ease of use, better registration, and 

elimination of finger sequence errors. 

2.3 Requirement for Fewer Fingerprints 

Neal Latta (DHS) discussed the increasing popularity and advantages of systems relying 

on fewer than ten fingerprints. Two-finger systems are being used for applications 

including border control, mobile law enforcement, social services distribution, driver 

licenses, and voter registration. Advantages include low cost scanners, subject 

acceptance, less bandwidth, and lower system cost. However, disadvantages 

associated with this form of processing can be summarized as a lack of interoperability, 

a lack of scanner compliance standards, and a reduction in the amount of information 

available as it affects accuracy statistics. Latta suggested that new efforts should be 

started to overcome these problems. 

3
2.4 HSPD #12 Issues 

Charles Wilson gave a brief description of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 

#12 (HSPD #12) 4 . This directive mandates the development of a common 

biometrically enabled Personnel Identification Verification (PIV) card. The card shall be 

used by all federal employees and contractors for physical and logical access to federal 

facilities and computers. FIPS 201 is a Federal Information Processing Standard for the 

PIV card and processes. NIST Special Publication 800-76 contains the required 

fingerprint and optional face technical biometric specifications for the FIPS 201 including 

the NIST Fingerprint Image Quality (NFIQ) value[4]. NIST Special Publication 800-73 

contains the interface specifications for the FIPS 201. Existing FBI transactions will be 

used for enrollment and background checks while two fingerprints will be put on the PIV 

card itself for verification purposes. 

Elham Tabassi (NIST) discussed the derivation and use of the first and only publicly 

available vendor-independent fingerprint image quality algorithm. The NIST Fingerprint 

Image Quality (NFIQ) assessment algorithm will be used for the PIV card. It is based on 

the premise that the performance of a fingerprint matcher is directly affected by the 

quality of fingerprint images captured and present in the database. The feature 

extraction portion of the algorithm computes the appropriate image fidelity characteristics. 

This results in an 11-dimensional feature vector that is input to a neural network. The 

neural network then classifies the feature vector into one of five levels of quality. An 

integer quality number between 1 (highest quality) and 5 (lowest quality) is assigned to 

each image. Fifteen fingerprint matching algorithms and 22 different datasets were 

used to evaluate the NFIQ algorithm and determine its reliability. 

Walter Hamilton, representing the International Biometrics Industry Association (IBIA), 

provided the biometric industry's perspective on the PIV card. His main criticism of the 

PIV procedures was that use of fingerprint images for on-card storage is not appropriate. 

He was adamant that standards-based fingerprint minutiae templates should be stored 

on the PIV card. Hamilton's position was based on a limited amount of storage space on 

the PIV card, performance issues associated with data transfer of fingerprint images, 

timing issues, and privacy concerns. Acknowledging the current situation that template 

interoperability has not yet been established in widespread deployments, he suggested 

that the PIV development be delayed until further data confirms that template 

interoperability is achievable. 

3 Other Biometric Standards 

The next session of the workshop compared the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 standard to 

other developed biometric format standards. Fernando Podio (NIST) provided an 

overview of the national and international biometric standards activities in this area. He 

pointed out that the InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards 

(INCITS) and NIST-ITL are both standards developer organizations certified by ANSI to 

develop standards in an open and fair manner. M1 is the INCITS committee for 

biometrics that has developed commercial standards for the exchange of fingerprint, 

face, and iris information for identification and verification purposes. 

 

4

 http://csrc.nist.gov/piv-project/index.html 

4
3.1 ANSI/NIST-ITL Standard 

The ANSI/NIST-ITL standard was and is primarily intended for use by law enforcement 

agencies. It specifies the format for the exchange of descriptive text, fingerprint, face, 

scar, mark, and tattoo information to be used for the identification of a subject. An 

ANSI/NIST file can contain all of the available information pertaining to a subject 

including personal descriptive data, criminal history, and fingerprint and/or face data. 

3.2 CBEFF 

A primary difference between the M1 standards and the ANSI/NIST standard is that all 

of the M1 data format standards require that the defined biometric record be encased 

within a Common Biometric Exchange Formats Framework (CBEFF)[5] envelope. Cathy 

Tilton (Saflink) provided a brief description of CBEFF. While not constraining the 

encoding of data, it defines basic fields used by biometric data, and provides for the 

registration of biometric data via IBIA. The high level CBEFF structure consists of a 

header block, a biometric data block, and an optional signature block. 

3.3 Developed M1 Format Standards 

Overviews of the five developed M1 format standards were presented to determine 

points of contrast with the finger image, finger minutiae, and face standard counterpart 

records in the ANSI/NIST-ITL standard. One objective of the workshop was to attempt 

to harmonize the ANSI/NIST with the M1 set of standards. 

Mike McCabe (NIST) addressed the M1 Finger Image-Based[6] and M1 Finger MinutiaeBased[7] standards both of which require a CBEFF wrapper. The M1 image standard 

contains a field that specifies various image acquisition parameters. The choice of this 

setting is commensurate with system and application requirements. The ANSI/NIST 

standard dictates minimum requirements that exceed those of the M1 image format. 

The M1 format is a compact binary form not readily expandable. The tagged field format 

used in the ANSI/NIST image records require more storage but is expandable. 

Comparison of the M1 finger minutiae format with the ANSI/NIST format shows that one 

of the main differences between the two is that the M1 format provides specifics for the 

positioning of the minutiae. Another difference is that the M1 format uses a compact 

binary format to describe each minutia. This is in contrast to the ASCII format used by 

ANSI/NIST. There are also other minor differences between the two formats including 

the capability of the M1 format to accommodate encoded vendor proprietary data. At the 

end of the workshop McCabe also gave a brief description and status of the MINEX045

program. This evaluation test seeks to determine the current state of interoperability 

between AFIS vendors when minutiae templates are exchanged. The templates are 

based on the M1 minutiae format. A report on this project is targeted for February 2006. 

Cathy Tilton described the M1 Finger Pattern-Based[8] standard. Its use is intended for 

portable devices such as the slide format sensors. Rather than encode minutiae, the 

pattern approach analyzes global sections of the image. A data and resolution reduction 

technique is first applied. The resultant image is then broken into cells, each of which 

can be represented by a sinusoidal waveform. 

 

5

 http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex04/index.html 

5
Jim Cambier (Iridian) discussed the Iris[9] interchange format that has been developed 

in M1. It is used for the exchange of iris information among multiple vendors and 

applications. There are two image storage formats that are specified by this M1 

standard – the rectilinear and polar formats. The rectilinear format is essentially a raw 

image format with a minimum of preprocessing. A cropped compressed iris image 

would require 12K to 15K bytes of storage. The polar format preprocesses the iris 

image to find the pupil and iris boundaries. The iris portion of the image is then 

converted to polar coordinates and typically stored in 2K bytes of storage. 

The final M1 format was presented by Paul Griffin (Identix). Although there is a face 

record type in the ANSI/NIST format, the M1 Face Recognition[10] format contains more 

detail. The M1 facial standard is image-based. A face template does not exist at this 

time as there has not been significant agreement on the contents of a possible facial 

template. The standard specifies best practices for how the face should appear rather 

than the mechanics of capturing the photograph. In order to improve recognition 

performance the standard allows for the inclusion of additional visible information 

pertaining to the face that can be discernable to an operator (for example eye color). 

Optional feature points (such as the specification of eye positions) are also part of the 

M1 standard. Both JPEG[11] and JPEG 2000[12] algorithms can be used for 

compressing facial images. However, too much compression can result in compression 

artifacts and a decrease in search accuracy. 

3.4 M1-Style ANSI/NIST Record 

Currently, there is no counterpart for the fingerprint pattern, iris, and other unique M1 

biometric data formats within the ANSI/NIST standard. However, an ability to 

incorporate such M1 data formats within the standard framework would be useful. This 

can be accomplished with the creation of a different ANSI/NIST record type for each new 

biometric that is defined. Alternatively, an approach can be developed that will allow the 

M1 formats to be included within the ANSI/NIST framework. As both of these are viable 

approaches, there is nothing to prohibit the inclusion of both. 

Dale Hapeman, representing the DoD Biometrics Management Office (DoD/BMO), 

stated that there is a need for multiple biometric data types in the ANSI/NIST standard to 

support existing and deployed DoD systems in the field. This could be accomplished by 

the creation of an additional record that would support all the M1 data formats contained 

within a CBEFF structure. 

This recommendation for the creation of an M1/CBEFF record initiated considerable 

discussion. Such an approach would allow the ANSI/NIST standard to carry iris, voice, 

earlobe and other data without the need for the creation of a new record type for each 

biometric. However, the ANSI/NIST standard has the advantage of simplicity and a 

consistent parsing structure. This recommendation would introduce a complex system 

of possibilities that could cause a situation that the receiver of a transaction would not be 

able to parse an entire file transaction. At this time, most of DoD's requirements could 

be solved with the addition of a new iris record. It was decided to delay any action on 

the recommendation until the end of the meeting. 

6
4 Advances in Technology 

4.1 Use of XML with the ANSI/NIST Standard 

A four-member panel discussion on the use of XML (eXtensible Markup Language) with 

the ANSI/NIST standard presented several ways to merge XML principles with the 

standard. Gerry Coleman of the Wisconsin Department of Justice (WI/DOJ) was the 

panel moderator and presented a basic introduction to XML concepts. He pointed out 

that it was a generic text format for describing and tagging data. Its design goals 

included the creation of human-legible and reasonably clear documents - terseness in 

XML being of minimal importance. The purpose of XML was not to perform active 

functions (such as HTML's bolding function) but to structure, store, and send information. 

Like HTML, XML employs paired symmetrical tag names that are defined by the 

implementation and agreement between the sender and recipient. These tags can also 

be nested to create a "well-formed" XML document. As applied to the ANSI/NIST 

standard, Coleman proposed that field tag names could replace the current field 

numbers. For example, the Type-2 record length field "2.001:" could be converted into 

"<length>" and "<\length>" tags. Similarly, current character separators could be 

replaced with tag names and angle brackets. 

There are good reasons to enhance the ANSI/NIST standard with the use of XML 

including readability, and interoperability. The disadvantage is that it is a text formatting 

convention that doesn't mix well with binary (image) data. Several proposals were 

mentioned for the handling of binary data. Image data could be embedded in the file by 

encoding it into a Base-64 block of data. But this results in a 33 % increase in size and 

additional overhead in the encoding and decoding processes. A second approach was 

to provide a URL reference to an external file containing the image data. A third 

approach was the Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism (MTOM) whereby 

documents and attachments are packaged together for transmission. 

Coleman serves as chair on the Joint Task Force on Rapsheet Standardization (JTF). 

The JTF has created an XML rapsheet transmission standard using tagged data similar 

to the ANSI/NIST fingerprint transmission standard and converted it to conform to the 

Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM). Following up on this work the JTF 

recommends that the FBI develop a Type-2 record specification using GJXDMconformant XML and that an XML version of the entire ANSI/NIST fingerprint standard 

be developed. 

Catherine Plummer (SEARCH) began her presentation by stating that goals of 

Information Exchange Package Documentation (IEPD) include the support for 

interoperability among justice systems, expand and refine GJXDM/DD through 

experienced feedback to resolve vague definitions, and to limit the number of key 

choices to support interoperability. The steps involved with the IEPD process were 

described including domain modeling, GJXDM mapping, subset schema, sample XML 

instances, and packaging. She concluded her presentation by stating that the goal of 

IEPD is to exchange messages not to build databases. 

Customers of Scott Hills (AWARE) have frequently requested conversion from 

ANSI/NIST to XML and to a much lesser degree conversion in the reverse order. In 

light of these requests, his recommendation is that the current standard should not be 

converted to a pure XML format. Guidelines or templates for converting between 

7
ANSI/NIST and XML should be developed for the revision of the ANSI/NIST standard. 

Two approaches were suggested. First, develop a domain-independent specification 

that would mirror the structure of the current standard and ensure that one schema 

would be appropriate for any ANSI/NIST file. Second, develop a domain specific 

schema that would reflect domain specific requirements for Type of Transactions (TOT), 

record types, and all Type-2 record requirements in the element tags. Although both 

approaches have been implemented, the notion of a "standardized translation" between 

the two is being promoted by Hills. 

The last panel presentation was delivered by Alessandro Triglia (OSS Nokalva) who 

proposed an XML-based version of the ANSI/NIST standard. He began with an example 

of an ANSI/NIST formatted record converted to XML with CBEFF tags embedded. This 

was followed by a thorough review of the CBEFF status, a description of CBEFF 

concepts including a detailed description of the patron formats and the CBEFF structure. 

He concluded with a description of the features of an XML patron format, an example of 

it, and a brief description of a proposed document format. 

A discussion period that followed the panel presentations was begun with Coleman 

stating that despite the several proposals offered, there did not appear to be a unified 

solution put forth by the panel. 

Moving the ANSI/NIST standard toward XML would simplify the interaction between 

AFIS and non-AFIS (criminal history) systems. But a concern was raised about 

transition costs in terms of money and time to covert thousands of existing applications 

to XML. The added capabilities will drive the use of XML. It was suggested that the 

vendors won't drive users to XML. The users and the public will drive applications to 

Webservices, which will drive the migration toward XML. It is the users who will write 

XML requirements into their requests for proposals. 

It was pointed out that existing equipment becomes obsolete and must be replaced but 

that legacy systems and data would continue to be supported. To resolve the cost 

concern is was proposed that both XML schema and ANSI/NIST files should be allowed 

to coexist. A suggestion was made to develop a second standard for XML that would 

"mirror" ANSI/NIST data. 

Before the discussion ended it was repeated that the binary problem had still not been 

resolved. Dealing with the 33 % increase in size and the latency overhead for encoding 

and decoding is a struggle. But it was stated that if you email ANSI/NIST records today, 

you are already using Base-64 encoding. 

The participants at the workshop decided to delay further discussion and decisions 

specific to the roadmap to XML until the end of the workshop. 

4.2 Third Level Details 

Steve Meagher (FBI) opened the next session with two proposals submitted by the 

Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). 

The first was for the inclusion in the standard of level three details from fingerprint 

images and the second was a proposal for a minimum scanning resolution of 1000 

pixels per inch (ppi) or 39.37 pixels per milllimeter (ppmm). 

8
Historically, development of AFIS technology was a result of a need to achieve a 

required throughput and performance for the high volume processing of tenprint 

fingerprints. This was achieved through the use of both classification matching and 

minutiae matching techniques. These are commonly referred to as level 1 details which 

include orientation, cores, and deltas, and level 2 details which includes combinations, 

relationships, and the absence of characteristics. 

Although this approach has worked well for tenprint processing, the quality and amount 

of captured information may not meet all of the needs for latent print examination. Level 

three details are also needed by examiners to improve latent print matching. Third level 

details include ridge features such as dots, pores, ridge edge shapes, ridge widths, path 

information, and ridge relationships. 

This information contributes to fingerprint image quality which is a key factor for 

improved latent matching. SWGFAST proposes that level three details be included as 

part of the Type-9 minutiae record. A survey was taken of the workshop participants 

regarding the addition of level three details. There was no objection to inserting this 

information into the standard. Meagher agreed to head up an ad hoc group to include 

SWGFAST and other interested parties to develop the required concepts, definitions, 

and representations of level three details. 

The second part of their proposal states that in order for level three details to be useful it 

is necessary that the images be scanned at 1000 ppi in order to detect the level three 

details. He also proposed that if the fingerprint images are to be compressed, then 

JPEG 2000 shall be used with a maximum compression ratio of 10:1. Like the other 

major controversial issues, the decision on this proposal was postponed until the end of 

the workshop. 

4.3 Facial Image Compression 

Paul Griffiin (Identix) presented a talk on the trade-offs between accuracy and 

compression for face recognition. When the compression ratio increases, the facial 

recognition accuracy degrades. In a study that he summarized, recognition accuracy 

dropped by 20 % as the file size dropped from 150KB bytes to 7.5KB. 

However, there are applications that require a captured facial image to be overcompressed in order to store it on particular media such as a smart card. To 

compensate for this trade-off, a region of interest (ROI) compression approach can be 

used to preserve recognition performance while meeting file size requirements. The 

image can be compressed as two or three nested areas. For the case of two ROIs, the 

inner area encompasses the hair, chin, and neck of a subject. The outer area consists 

of the remainder of the image. A third ROI or core area can be defined to include just 

the forehead, eyes and nose. If two ROIs are used, the outer area is compressed more 

aggressively than the inner area. For three ROIs, the core area would be the least 

compressed, with the surrounding ROI (the inner area) more compressed, and the outer 

area the most aggressively compressed. By using this approach nearly a 3:1 reduction 

in file size can be achieved without any loss in performance accuracy. 

4.4 Fingerprint Image Compression 

Tom Hopper (FBI) then addressed the compression of fingerprint images scanned at 

1000 ppi. The FBI developed the Wavelet Scalar Quantization (WSQ) algorithm for 

9
compressing fingerprint images scanned at 500 ppi (19.69 ppmm). The use of wavelets 

was found to be the most efficient technique for this application. However, when the 

same WSQ algorithm was applied to images scanned at 1000 ppi, the algorithm did not 

function as expected. Rather than devoting additional resources to upgrade the WSQ 

algorithm, the JPEG 2000 algorithm was chosen as an alternative. Already a standard, 

it is similar to the WSQ, wavelet based, efficient, and produces excellent image quality. 

A JPEG 2000 profile for 1000 ppi fingerprint images has been developed by Margaret 

Lepley (MITRE)[13]. This profile is a restricted subset of JPEG 2000 parameter settings 

to insure image quality and interoperability. It also provides a path for transcoding 1000 

ppi JPEG 2000 images to 500 ppi WSQ images. Use of JPEG 2000 with the 1000 ppi 

profile will be included in the FBI's Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification 

(EFTS). Certification criteria for proper adherence to this approach will also be 

developed in the near future. 

5 Proposed Updates and Action Items 

The remainder of the workshop addressed specific changes and enhancements 

proposed for inclusion in the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 standard. Mike McCabe set the 

stage for discussing proposed updates to the standard by presenting a summary of the 

uses for the standard, its history, its basic record structure, and the use of fields within 

the records. 

Following this introduction, specific recommendations for updating the standard were 

presented and reviewed. This included those issues which had earlier been postponed 

for further discussion and review. An appropriate amount time was allowed for 

discussion of each topic. In order to get a "sense" of the room regarding each item, 

workshop participants were asked for their opinion on the value of each proposal: 

should it be considered for inclusion in the standard? There was no formal voting 

protocol established for the workshop as the official procedures used to update the 

standard were not yet in effect. Therefore, the answers to these questions would not be 

binding. Rather, they would be used as a "starting point" or guide for the development of 

a revision to the standard. An informal process was used to determine the action to be 

taken on each proposal. It was usually accomplished by asking for objections to the 

assumption of inclusion in the standard. On more contentious issues, participants (one 

per organization) were asked to raise their hands to vote on an issue. Hands were 

counted but participants were not individually polled. 

The reason for this informality was that during the course of the workshop it became 

very apparent that, by the end of the three days, full agreement on all open issues that 

had been introduced would not be achieved. The workshop did identify a list of topics 

and issues for possible inclusion in the draft for an updated standard. It would be 

necessary for most of these issues and new proposals to be better developed and 

refined in small ad hoc groups - each concerned with a specific topical area. Email and 

teleconferences would be the tools to accomplish their work outside of the workshop. 

Conclusions reached by each of these ad hoc groups shall be documented in a form 

acceptable for inclusion in a proposed draft revision of the standard. All proposals will 

be reviewed at the next workshop to be held at a later date. 

10
5.1 Facial Image Proposals 

Paul Griffin presented a comparison between concepts and facial information included in 

the ANSI/NIST Type-10 record and those used by the ANSI INCITS 385-2004 Face 

Recognition Format. The inclusion of features and other information from INCITS 385 in 

the Type 10 record would provide additional capabilities for facial recognition and other 

applications. Several recommendations were made to enhance the Type-10 record. 

• Allow the use of color JPEG 2000 as an image format to provide better image 

quality than traditional JPEG at a fixed compression. 

• Add source type to aid in artifact removal and gamma correction. 

• Add provision for quality score and algorithm identification information. 

• Expand format to include facial feature points that function as the minutiae of the 

face. 

• Define fields for the 3D pose angle set of yaw, pitch, and roll. 

• Include a facial image capture application profile that covers compression limits, 

capture requirements, and other best practice attributes or requirements. 

• Define additional fields for temporary face image attributes such as facial 

expression, and eye blinking. 

There was a basic consensus from the workshop that these issues should be refined by 

a "FACE" ad hoc group and this group's recommendations should be presented at the 

next workshop. 

5.2 Character Sets, Codes, and Tracking 

Rob Mungovan (AWARE) proposed five recommendations to the ANSI/NIST standard. 

All were accepted to be sent to a "UTF/GPS" ad hoc group for refinement and inclusion 

in the draft standard update. 

• Use UTF-8 in place of 7-bit ASCII for all user-defined fields to simplify 

international applications. This recommendation elicited considerable 

discussion including the need for a registry of character sets. 

• Expand the Type-10 record to include color JPEG 2000 and JPEG 2000 lossless 

modes as supported compression algorithms. 

• Define a new field in the Type-1 record to identify the software used to generate 

the transaction. This field would include the vendors name, software application 

name, and version number of the software. 

• Formally specify within the standard the name of each algorithm that can be used 

for compressing images in Type 13-16 records. 

• Formally specify within the standard the value for WSQ and JPEG that can be 

used in the Type-4 record. 

Bonnie Scheier (SABER) proposed two recommendations. Both proposals triggered 

discussion and unresolved questions. However, they were accepted in concept and 

sent to the UTF/GPS ad hoc group for further development. 

• Develop a Global Positioning System (GPS) data field to be added to the Type-1 

record so as to provide a mapping of an arrestee's location at or near the point of 

arrest. 

11
• Develop a Submission Tracking Field (STF) for the Type-1 record to support the 

tracking of submission's header information and timestamps while traversing 

multiple vendors and jurisdictions. 

5.3 Harmonizing Standards and Miscellaneous Updates 

Mike McCabe presented several recommendations aimed at harmonizing standards 

developed by ANSI/NIST with those developed by M1. Additional miscellaneous 

proposals to update existing tables and requirements were proposed. All of the 

recommendations were accepted and assigned to the "MISC" or the "SWGFAST/FBI" ad 

hoc group for additional refinement. 

• Define and reserve a new block of fields for the Type-9 minutiae record to 

contain information similar to that found in the INCITS 378-2004 Finger Minutiae 

format. Minutiae position will be as defined according to the method used by the 

M1 format. This block of reserved fields shall be allocated for the same purpose 

as those blocks currently assigned to specific AFIS vendors. 

• Define additional fields to the Type 13-16 records that will specify image capture 

parameters, information on the number of views, image quality information, and 

optional product identification. 

• Define a new record type to contain iris image information. Jim Cambier (Iridian) 

will be asked to confirm that information fields contained in this record do not 

infringe on any existing patents. 

• Add a code "15" to Table 6 in order to represent the simultaneous capture of two 

plain thumbs. 

• Adjust the length and width dimensions in Table 6 (finger codes 11-15) to 

accommodate the enlarged platen sizes for plain images on the newer live scan 

devices. 

• Add codes and dimensions for right and left thenar, hyperthenar, and interdigital 

areas of the palm. This proposal was expanded to include the codes, 

dimensions, and descriptions for each of the major case prints requested by 

SWGFAST. 

• Add a vendor identification field for all image and minutiae records. 

• Update table 5 describing impression types to include the swipe, contactless, 

and other impression types suggested by the SWGFAST/FBI ad hoc group. 

• Increase the maximum size of the source agency/ORI to 50 characters for 

record types requiring this information. 

5.4 Level Three Details and Scanning Resolution 

Steve Meagher submitted the level three details and the resolution proposals on behalf 

of SWGFAST. 

• The first recommendation called for establishing an ad hoc group to develop an 

approach to encoding third level details for fingerprints. These include, but are 

not limited to, definitions and descriptions of details including pores, ridge edge 

shapes, ridge widths, dots, and ridge relationships. The recommendation was 

approved. The "SWGFAST/FBI" ad hoc group shall consist of AFIS vendor 

representatives, SWGFAST members, and other interested participating 

volunteers. 

12
• The second proposal stated that the normal mode of finger and palm print image 

capture should be 1000 ppi (39.37 ppmm) minimum scan resolution. Images 

should be compressed using JPEG 2000, not to exceed 10:1 compression. 

Legacy compatible 500ppi (19.69 ppmm) image capture and processing should 

be permitted. 

A "straw" vote was taken and the motion failed. The Type-14 record is being 

popularized as a civilian identification record for processing in FBI and DHS 

background checks. A requirement for a 1000 ppi scan resolution may cause 

non-law enforcement agencies to abandon use of the ANSI/NIST standard if it 

tied to latent forensic identification constraints. This proposal was then split into 

three separate parts being applicable to latent, tenprint, and palm print images. 

A second vote was taken that determined the minimum scanning resolution for 

the capture of latent images should be set to 1000 ppi. Two additional votes 

were taken to determine the scanning resolution for tenprint and palm print 

images. The result of these two votes was to maintain the status quo of 500 ppi 

as a minimum but with a strong recommendation for 1000 ppi for tenprint and 

palm print images. If the fingerprint images scanned at 1000 ppi are to be 

compressed, then JPEG 2000 shall be used with a maximum compression ratio 

of 10:1. 

5.5 M1 Data Formats 

Dale Hapeman revisited the additional CBEFF record structure and presented two 

alternatives for consideration. 

• First, any CBEFF record format would be allowed to be included. It would not be 

patron-format specific. The CBEFF patron format owner and type information 

would be located at the beginning of the record. The remainder of the record 

would contain the CBEFF BIR (binary data). 

• The second alternative would allow the ANSI/NIST to become its own patron 

format. To accomplish this approximately 23 CBEFF header bytes would be 

added at the beginning of the record. The biometric data would follow. 

The second approach appeared to have the most support. It was also suggested that in 

order to provide broader application for the ANSI/NIST standard, a minimalist patron 

format could be created and put in all ANSI/NIST higher resolution records. The addition 

of a new record type to accommodate data structures defined in M1 but not in 

ANSI/NIST was accepted in concept. The issue was assigned to the "M1/CBEFF" ad 

hoc group for development. 

5.6 XML Issues 

Gerry Coleman introduced recommendations for an ANSI/NIST roadmap to XML. Two 

options were presented. 

• Allow XML as "User-defined" data in the Type 2 descriptive text record. This 

implies retaining the existing structure and formatting mechanisms, but allowing 

XML instead of numeric tags within a single logical record. This may result in the 

creation of a new Type 2N XML user-defined data record. 

13
• Define entire ANSI/NIST package by creating an XML structure for the entire 

specification. Tag names would be created for the entire package, each logical 

record, and all numeric tags. This would eliminate use of fs,gs,rs,us separators. 

Base64 encoding would be used for embedded binary data. 

Some discussion followed. Workshop participants agreed that an "XML" ad hoc group 

should study the issues involved, and develop a solution for the draft of the updated 

standard. 

5.7 Live Scan Issues 

The final recommendations for updating the standard were submitted by Bill Long 

(Business Performance Research Associates). He provided an overview and 

comparison of next generation livescan devices and associated factors that may need to 

be considered for inclusion in the update of the standard. The following issues will be 

considered by the "LiveScan" ad hoc group. 

• Modify table 6 of the standard to include 2-finger captures of plain fingerprint 

impressions. Although not explicitly stated in the standard, this capability is 

available in the Type-14 record by listing the two finger positions separated by 

the ASCII us or rs separator characters. 

• Create an additional field to indicate the quality scale and quality value of the 

fingerprint image in Type-14 and above records. 

• Create an additional field to indicate if a finger were "live" or not. As there are 

several issues associated with this topic it was decided to add a field to indicate 

whether the capture was in an "attended" or "unattended" mode. 

• Addition of a field to represent 3-D livescan capture of fingerprints. The LiveScan 

ad hoc group will provide a concrete proposal on this subject for the next 

workshop. 

5.8 Security 

Greg Cannon (CrossMatch) raised the question as to whether the ANSI/NIST standard 

should be updated with applicable security and privacy measures. No decision was 

reached on the issue. But it was decided that a "SECURITY" ad hoc group should be 

created to look at the issues and provide a proposal or make a report at the next 

workshop. 

6 ANSI Standard Development Process 

The participants at the workshop favored updating the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 standard 

to incorporate new features that had been discussed. To accomplish this, procedures 

established by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) would be used. Mike 

Hogan (NIST) provided information on ANSI and the ANSI requirements that NIST must 

follow for updating the standard. ANSI accredits its 200 standards developers based on 

approval of the procedures used by each developer. NIST/ITL has been accredited by 

ANSI since October 5, 1984, to develop standards and guidelines for information 

exchange relating to automatic data processing and related systems. 

14
One of the hallmarks of the ANSI process is that consensus must be achieved on a 

proposed standard by a group or "consensus body" that includes representatives from 

materially affected and interested parties. NIST/ITL uses the canvass method to 

establish consensus (i.e., the consensus body is the list of canvass members). NIST/ITL 

will issue a call for members to start development of the canvass list. Individuals and 

organizations that agree to be canvassees have an obligation to vote on at least the final 

version of the draft standard. There are established rules that govern the approval of a 

draft standard. A fairly detailed flowchart of the ANSI standards development process is 

available in the power point presentation for this topic. 

7 Conclusions 

This workshop was convened to determine the future for the ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2000 

standard. Should it be withdrawn for lack of use or relevance, reaffirmed for another five 

years, or updated and modified? Participants at the workshop decided it should be 

updated so as to fulfill additional application requirements, and to take advantage of 

advances in technology that have occurred since the 2000 version was approved. 

Workshop participants then had to decide which aspects of the standard were to be 

affected. 

The first step in this process was to examine current and future requirements of existing 

stakeholders. The FBI, DHS, INTERPOL, and NIST described their current applications 

of the standard and how planned initiatives would require alterations to the existing 

standard. New developments in approaches to information technology such as XML, 

and new standards such as those developed by the INCITS M1 group were described. 

Their relationships to the ANSI/NIST standard were outlined and discussed. Possible 

methods of incorporating XML with the current standard were reviewed, as were 

approaches to harmonizing the ANSI/NIST standard with the M1 suite of standards. 

Finally, suggestions and enhancements aimed at specific aspects of the standard were 

proposed, discussed, and evaluated. Agreement for the inclusion of several proposed 

issues was achieved during the workshop. However, the majority of proposed issues 

required additional refinement or study to convert the ideas into an acceptable form for 

further review and acceptance. To accomplish this, several ad hoc groups were formed. 

Each was tasked with developing solutions to specific issues. One person from each ad 

hoc group was appointed as the chair. These chairs will be responsible for refining 

proposals and providing completed solutions for each issue. 

The following is a list of the ad hoc groups appointed with a brief reference to the tasks 

of each group. The first name in each group has volunteered to serve as chair with the 

remaining members having expressed an interest in serving on the group. Membership 

in any of the ad hoc groups can be increased or changed by contacting the chair of the 

group. 

• Face - Compression issues, 3D parameters, best practice 

 

o Paul Griffin - Paul.Griffin@identix.com 

o Patrick Grother 

o Mike McCabe 

15
• UTF/GPS - UTF coding, GPS, Tracking, Vendor Identification 

o Rob Mungovan - rob@aware.com 

o Bonny Scheier 

o Ralph Lessmann 

o Tony Mislin 

o Dale Hapeman 

• MISC - Iris & minutiae record enhancements etc. 

o Mike McCabe - mccabe@nist.gov 

o Rob Mungovan 

o Dale Hapeman 

o Paul Griffin 

o Tom Hopper 

o Bill Long

• SWGFAST/FBI - 3rd Level Details, Major Case Prints, Impression Types 

o Steve Meagher – stephen.meagher@ic.fbi.gov 

o Ben Bavarian 

o John Burt 

o Austin Hicklin 

o Scott Swann 

o Geppy Parziale 

o Bill Long 

• M1/CBEFF - Develop a record type to handle M1 data formats 

o Dale Hapeman - dale.hapeman@dodbfc.army.mil 

o Bonny Scheier 

o Rob Mungovan 

• XML - Develop a scheme that is compatible with standard 

o Gerry Coleman - coleman@DOJ.STATE.WI.US 

o Ralph Lessmann 

o Dave Weston 

o David Woo 

o Allessandro Triglia 

o Rob Mungovan 

o David Rodman 

o Bonny Scheier 

16
• LiveScan - Encoding of 3D Fingerprint data 

o Bill Long - bpra@earthlink.net 

o Steve Meagher 

• Security - Standard guidance issues 

o Greg Cannon - greg.cannon@crossmatch.com 

o Kevin Wilson

References 

[1] Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (FpVTE) 2003 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/pact/pact.html

[2] Studies of One-to-One Fingerprint Matching with Vendor SDK Matchers, NISTIR 

7221 http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/pact/pact.html

[3] Matching Performance for the US-VISIT IDENT System Using Flat Fingerprints, 

May 2004. NISTIR 7110 http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/pact/pact.html

[4] NIST Fingerprint Image Quality NISTIR 7151; 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/pact/pact.html

[5] NISTIR 6529-A-2004, Common Biometric Exchange Formats Framework 

(CBEFF) 

[6] Finger Image-Based Data Interchange Format, ANSI INCITS 381-2004 

[7] Finger Minutiae Format for Data Interchange, ANSI INCITS 378-2004 

[8] Finger Pattern Data Interchange Format, ANSI INCITS 377-2004 

[9] Iris Image Interchange Format, ANSI INCITS 379-2004 

[10] Face Recognition Format for Data Interchange, ANSI INCITS 385-2004 

[11] ISO/IEC 10918, Information Technology – Digital Compression and Coding of 

Continuous-tone Still Images (JPEG) – Parts 1-4 

[12] ISO/IEC 15444, Information Technology – JPEG 2000 Image Coding System – 

Parts 1-10 

 [13] Profile for 1000ppi Fingerprint Compression, Version 1.1, April 2004, 

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_04/lepley_fingerprint/lepley_

fingerprint.pdf

17