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

[Jason Kitcat <jeep@free-project.org>]

Hi,


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

Thank you for doing that. However the subsequent section which begins:

"The procedures required to support I-voting are illustrated below:"

then details a procedure which includes references to 'signatures', 
'key pair'. Furthermore the system implies that some kind of 
identifying information is sent with a vote which can be seperated 
from the actual vote at the discretion of the registrar. It also 
details the concept of sending the system a 'form' to prove one 
should be able to vote, and then a ballot is returned to the voter.

All of these things shouldn't be specified as a system doesn't 
necessarily have to work that way. Thus in GNU.FREE the voter gets a 
client application which already contains the 'ballot' as such. The 
user is authenticated by one server and then sends the vote to 
another server. The only keypairs user are on transport level 
encryption and no signatures are used at all.

I not trying to be obstructive but I feel that we need to step back 
and not overspecify all of this. AFAIK we are specifying something to 
allow interoperability - thus we shouldn't make too many assumptions 
on how existing or future system do or might work.

regards,
Jason

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