Re: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for interoperable auditing still lacking

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>]

I live on the East Coast now, so no problem!

On Monday, July 26, 2010, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> The comments from Neal McBurnett below are the only ones received
> during this 15 day Public Review so now we have to decide how to respond to
> them.  Just to remind you of the process:
>
>
>
> -
> Comments can only be accepted against the changes made in this published
> version, ie comments made against other parts of the Spec are not acceptable.
>
> -
> The TC does not have to accept all comments, it has the right to
> reject them if they so wish.
>
> -
> If any substantive changes are made as a result of the comments
> then the TC has to go round the loop again of approving a new version as a Committee
> Draft and then publishing it for a new 15 day Public Review.  This loop is repeated
> until all comments have been satisfactorily incorporated or dismissed.
>
>
>
> I don’t really want to hide
> behind procedures to avoid any of them because they could be seen to be new changes
> rather than variations on the same theme.   David’s response below suggest some/most
> of these are local profile issues rather than mainstream EML ones and that may
> be a correct interpretation.  However let’s not forget that we have accepted
> that there is a need for major upgrade to include audit requirements and we
> would do that for the next release, so an answer at this stage could be to
> defer some/all of these comments until then.  Also note that any requests for
> example programs and interop tests are outside of the scope of v6.0 .
>
>
>
> I suggest therefore we go
> ahead with our TC call on Thursday to review these comments and decide how we
> wish to respond to each of them.  Can someone provide a conference call number please?
>  Just to remind you we have set the call for 14.30 CET/13.30
> UK/8.30 EST (sorry Joe!).
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David RR Webber
> (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: 25 July 2010 04:46
> To: Neal McBurnett
> Cc: election-services-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for
> interoperable auditing still lacking
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Neal,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> EML 530 is completely customizable with type code values
> of your own choosing.  I suspect what you desire can be provided
> as "profiles" of prescribed code types.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This would follow the same notes you make below for the 520.
>  Since these are all external to the schema - this would be covered by a
> USA localization guidelines for implementers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per comment 1) - the use you are suggesting is also such a guideline
> - I'm not sure the XML element needs to be renamed as such.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per comment 2) - alternate name for candidates - I believe this is
> already there - the name element type can be set to "Alternate" - in
> xNL type.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Similarly comments 3 thru 5 also constitutes localization
> guidelines.   I believe this is what we are seeing the P1622 will move to
> publish in coordination with NIST and OASIS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would suggest we can simply begin drafting an initial "how
> to" document along those lines.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, DW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message
> --------
> Subject: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for
> interoperable auditing still lacking
> From: Neal McBurnett <nealmcb@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, July 24, 2010 10:34 pm
> To: election-services-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>
> Thank you for your attention to my comments on the first public
> draft of EMLv6:
>
>
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services-comment/200912/msg00002.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are some followup comments.  I've used a narrative style
> here to provide background and context, but have also listed along the way a
> number of specific comments which I'd like to see addressed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/