TGDC Meeting, December 2011 2012 Common Data Format Directions John P. Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology

TGDC Meeting, December 2011

2012 Common Data Format Directions

John P. WackNational Institute of Standards and

Technologyhttp://vote.nist.gov

TGDC Meeting, December 2011 Page 2

Outline Overview of IEEE P1622 standards

strategy Event logging in a common format Inputs/outputs for the voting

system in a common format Input - Voter registration database

export Output - Election Reporting


P1622 Standards Strategy Former strategy was to produce a

comprehensive standard However, the BBD standard may

have advanced more rapidly because it was more narrow in scope

P1622 now producing a family of standards


Family of P1622 CDF Standards

A family of CDF standards would include VRDB export Election results export Auditing export Event logs Cast vote record export

Would mean creating additional PARs for each standard, additional IEEE-mandated structure

But likely to result in faster adoption, greater success


2012 CDF Directions EAC’s priorities are

Event logging Election results reporting VRDB exports


Event Logging CDF Voting applications logging in such a

manner that the logs can be exported to a CDF

Or, logging directly in the CDF Would affect the

System log Election log

Would not affect the Operating System log


Items Logged System log: system powered up, user login,

encryption key changed, software loaded, file deleted, etc.

Election log: polls opened, zero count, vote cast, overvote/undervote reported, etc.

VVSG 2.0 has a detailed list of items Additional items could be logged in a ‘test mode’

Voter interactions (but not choices) on a touchscreen device to detect unusual patterns that suggest problems with the interface


How It Would Work Simple EML/XML schema to hold

the basic categories of information Voting device exports to this format

or logs natively Manufacturer-specific

documentation required to interpret meaning of category values


Proposed Scheme 6 basic fields:

Event ID Event time Action (e.g., vote cast, supervisor login) Result (e.g., successful, fail) ID of producing system ID of producing product

A common lexicon of actions and results is needed Could be derived from VVSG 2.0

Each manufacturer would need to provide a mapping


Next Steps Categorize, create groupings of events

Derived from VVSG 2.0 Assistance also from EAC

Create strawman schema and use case Potential discussion with

manufacturers around time of NASS/NASED Conference in late Jan 2012


VRDB Export CDF Jurisdictions able to export voter

registration information in a common format

Would serve as common format input into the voting system Epollbooks Election Management Systems


PEW’s VRDB Modernization

Addresses the errors in VRDBs and how to reduce them

Plan is to cleanse them by comparing databases across states to detect duplicates and old records

Other plans to introduce methods for updated DBs electronically

E.g., at MVA-DMV, no more error-prone paper records Elimination of manual updates


Next Steps P1622 to suggest a format to use for

exported information that will be sufficiently comprehensive across states

P1622 and PEW to coordinate PEW not ready to sign on to a specific

format just yet P1622 needs to be proactive and

develop a well-documented use case


Election Reporting CDF Jurisdictions reporting election

results in a common format Affects mainly EMS exports Would facilitate state roll-ups Would permit news organizations

to more rapidly digest, report on elections


Mid-Atlantic Consortium P1622 includes members of a Mid-Atlantic

Election Official Consortium, focusing on election reporting in a common format

Membership consists of Maryland State Board of Elections Virginia State Board of Elections West Virginia Secretary of State, Election

Division District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics


Background and Need Request of DC officials to provide

Washington Post technology staff guidance on developing an election results platform for 2012 election

Opportunity for this Consortium and P1622 to address this request (and other common practice opportunities among states)

P1622 to coordinate with Consortium, assist in analyzing and producing EML schemas


Deployment Plan States will develop independent plans

for deployment using EML schema documentation

States will host XML files locally on state resources

Consortium will coordinate with media outlets for publication of results

Offer other states the opportunity to benefit from results


Next Steps P1622 to assist in developing a common

framework based on EML 510/530 with assistance from P1622

Security aspects need more study, digital signature infrastructure probably necessary

Consortium, others parties to develop a common set of XSLT transformations for media use


Discussion

Documents

TGDC Meeting, December 2011 2012 Common Data Format Directions John P. Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology