RE: [election-services] RE: EML TC MEETING AGENDA

[John Ross <ross@secstan.com>]

Jason,

I used the term "digital id" as a generic term for a strong digital
identification mechanism,  digital signatures or certificates are one form
of "digital-id" which need to be supported. However, I agree there could
possibly be others that may be strong enough to provide the authentication
needed.

I have amended the text in Para 4.3 to make it more general.  Is that OK?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Kitcat [mailto:jeep@free-project.org]
Sent: 18 October 2001 12:39
To: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [election-services] RE: EML TC MEETING AGENDA


Hi,

>The issue is that the whole I-voting process will break down if the user
>verification during the registration process is inadequate and people can
>masquerade as other people and hence get their voting rights.

I don't dispute the need for adequate verification however
verification does not equal digital signatures or certificates. Even
if it did, you are specifying a certain order in which things should
be done. Why is that necessary... can't we just say this must be
verified without further detail?

regards,
Jason

--
            The FREE e-democracy project
----------------------------------------
            http://www.free-project.org
----------------------------------------
  secure, private and reliable Free Software

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

I-voting XML security reqv2.doc