Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Donald,

I don't think your argument covers the case where the presence of
the ineligible person is noticed after the selection has been run,
which is what happened in this case, and it is predicated on the
list being published before the selection is run, which didn't happen
in this case.

    Brian

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
Brian,

The advice you gave is exactly the opposite of that in RFC 3797, the
latest version of my non-binding guidelines for publicly verifiable
random selection. Note in particular that Section 5.1 of that RFC says
(with the all caps words in the original):

5.1.  Uncertainty as to the Pool

   Every reasonable effort should be made to see that the published pool
   from which selection is made is of certain and eligible persons.
   However, especially with compressed schedules or perhaps someone
   whose claim that they volunteered and are eligible has not been
   resolved by the deadline, or a determination that someone is not
   eligible which occurs after the publication of the pool, it may be
   that there are still uncertainties.

   The best way to handle this is to maintain the announced schedule,
   INCLUDE in the published pool all those whose eligibility is
   uncertain and to keep the published pool list numbering IMMUTABLE
   after its publication.  If someone in the pool is later selected by
   the algorithm and random input but it has been determined they are
   ineligible, they can be skipped and the algorithm run further to make
   an additional selection.  Thus the uncertainty only effects one
   selection and in general no more than a maximum of U selections where
   there are U uncertain pool members.

   Other courses of action are far worse.  Actual insertion or deletion
   of entries in the pool after its publication changes the length of
   the list and totally scrambles who is selected, possibly changing
   every selection.  ...

The presence of ineligible persons in the list is no reason whatsoever
to reset.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: richard@xxxxxxxxxx; IETF-Discussion; Michael StJohns
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

...

The correct thing to do now is to reject the reest and stick with the
original list. The only case where a reset should be allowed is if the
process produced a bogus result.


Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only


way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.


Well, I have to say I think you provided some extremely bad advice, and
I sincerely hope that there isn't anyone on the first list that has an
even slightly acrimonious public relationship with Andrew. We could be
in very deep doo if there is.

				Ned

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]