[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] EML v6 : EAC REQUIREMENTS
Peter Hopefully if we get v6 right
then we’ll be able to convince people it works for USA as well. Are you joining the TC call
shortly? John From: Zelechoski, Peter
[mailto:pzelechoski@essvote.com] John, all - If they are discussing the EDX that was submitted to IEEE for
consideration by P1622, it was created by Hart-InterCivic. Both EDX and
EML had holes; most of those were fixed by us (EML TC); Hart never completely
addressed all of their holes. If there is someone influencing this it
would probably be from that venue. The one thing we do know is that the individual at NIST that
originally looked at EML was predisposed to look at EML as not U.S. centric, as
many have been. That is an unfortunate situation because I have been able
to make it do whatever I needed by opening up my mind a bit. - Peter From: John
Borras [mailto:john@pensive.eu] David One aspect that we really need to do our homework on before
we finalise v6 is the ongoing debate around the EAC’s Voting Systems
Requirements. The story as far as I know it to date is as follows: The EAC put out for public comment the draft requirements
prepared by its TDGC committee, see http://www.eac.gov/files/vvsg/Final-TGDC-VVSG-08312007.pdf
and in particular Section 6.6
Integratability and Data Export/Interchange. The majority of public comments received favoured a much
more positive line on the sue of an open standard for data interchange and
supported the use of EML in that context. The NIST recommendations to the EAC committee following the
public comments is available at http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/voting-systems/voluntary-voting-guidelines/index_html/?searchterm=voting%20systems%20guidelines
and not surprisingly they are rather dismissive of EML saying it’s not up
to the job etc. At a recent meeting of the committee EDX was brought into
the equation as the more likely standard to use. Where and how that has
suddenly emerged from as it wasn’t part of the original consultation document I
don’t know. My inside sources however told me that there was no
discussion on this point at the meeting. The EAC committee has not finalised its new Guidelines but
instead has gone off down the road of looking into testing and certification. I am trying to get Laurent Liscia to take up his seat on the
EAC committee. So the least we should do is double-check that we can meet
all the requirements set out in the original TDGC document and the subsequent
NIST report. Thereafter we will have to rely on politics and our
supporters to press our case plus hopefully in the not too distant future being
able to cite ourselves as the ISO standard for e-voting. John |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]