re: Fw: public comment for VVSG

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:36:45 CDT

Alan,

I'm definately wanting to respond. One way of
approaching this is to compare to NIST VVSG2
here:
http://vote.nist.gov/VVSG2%20final.doc

and figure out the deltas / missing bits -
pges 96 to 98 are key in NIST VVSG2.

I also see we can possibly make a joint
OASIS EML / OVC submission here - as
that can add extra weight to our wishlist...

I think if we could engage the same OVC
team as we did for the GAO response.
Also we need to figure out an overview of
what we want to say - maybe 4 parts:

- Architecture / Approach
   o the current EAC approach is attempt
      to fetch the horse back after its already
      gone. That testing approach does not
      address the fundamental need to catch
      problems during certification
   o What OVC / EML brings to the table
       (summary of GAO hit points)
- Missing / Omissions
    o See what VVSG2 has that VVSG1 does not
- Errors / Clarifications
    o Many things they test are wildly underspec'd
       so virtually any old implementation passes..
- Summary / Conclusions
   o Tell them what we really think! ; -)

DW.

----- Original Message -----
There is a lot to consider here. Any takers?

Alan D.
>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT