RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED

["Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>]

David -

I think you missed the point.  Interoperability is one key item we must
demonstrate.  HOWEVER, in the US (and elsewhere I would argue) the
validation of the authenticity of a message is a major factor that we
must also demonstrate.  Definitely, for the VVSG, the security aspects
demand that we demonstrate this.

- Peter 

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 10:26 AM
To: Zelechoski, Peter
Cc: John Borras; eml; Lori Steele; Craig Burton
Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED

Peter,

I would not bet the farm on DSig for VVSG verification - by far the best
factor IMHO is that the specifications are open public and therefore
independently verifiable with conformance suites that can valid the
ballots and records and counts.

Having multiple vendors show interoperability makes that point most
eloquently of course.

; -)

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> From: "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com>
> Date: Fri, November 02, 2007 4:32 pm
> To: "John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>,  "eml"
> <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>,  "Lori Steele"
> <lori@everyonecounts.com>,  "Craig Burton" <craig@everyonecounts.com>
> 
> John, et al. -
>  
> This looks fine.  I think it is worth singling out the use of digital
> signatures as a high level demonstration of EML's ability to fulfill
the
> requirement for VVSG to verify all messages.
>  
> - Peter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: eml; Lori Steele; Craig Burton
> Subject: Re: [election-services] OASIS Demo for NASS / NASED
> 
> 
> Peter
>  
> Thanks for these thoughts, a very good starter for our discussions.
> However before we get to this level of detail I think it would be very
> useful to agree the objectives of the proposed Demo to focus our minds
> on what we are trying to achieve before we descend into the weeds.
> Below are my thoughts, not in any particular order of importance, and
> I'd welcome agreement or otherwise on these please.
>  
> - to show how EML can be used in a multi-channel e-voting ballot
> involving several suppliers
> - to localise the Demo in such a way as to ensure the ballots are
> understandable to the American participants and conform to their usual
> voting practices
> - to show how EML can meet the requirements of the draft EAC Voluntary
> Voting System Guidelines 
> - to show how the EML TC and the IEEE 1622 committee are collaborating
> to deliver consistent outputs and interoperable solutions
> - to demonstrate how EML can support multi-lingualism eg English,
> Spanish, (others?)
> - to help the audience better understand the scope, breadth,
flexibility
> and advantages of using EML
> - to identify any weaknesses in v5 that need to be addressed in future
> releases.
>  
>  
> John
> 
> 
> "Zelechoski, Peter" <pzelechoski@essvote.com> wrote:
> 
> 	At the OASIS Demo this week, John asked us to think about doing
> a demo in the US -- most likely at the NASS / NASED Conference that is
> scheduled to take place in Washington DC this coming February.
> 	I am attaching a draft outline for discussion amongst our TC. 
> 	- Peter 
> 	<<NassNasedKeyDemoPoints.ppt>> 
> 	
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> that
> 	generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
> TCs in OASIS
> 	at:
> 	
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now
>
<http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc
> 2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU> .