----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 7:24
PM
Subject: RE: Now there seems to be lack
of communication here...
Actually the scheme I propose does not depend on
pre-announcement of the list, only providing a proof of
registration.
I have not worked out exactly to avoid every attack but
there is certainly no need to publish everyone's email address - although it
is odd that you would mention that as the IETF is currently publishing my
telephone number I gave when registering for a previous IETF. Certainly every
selected member of NOMCON has to be reachable by email.
All you require is a unique identifier. It could be the
participant's name. If a person is registered twice and this is detected then
you use the name that occurs first in some canonical
ordering.
The registration mechanism could be a Web form that you
fill in that causes a receipt to be sent to the email address specified. That
way a registrant has a proof that they registered and can use that to
challenge the list.
Depends what you mean by "it". The overall process
may have broke in this case but the "it" referred to in the message you were
responding to is the "cryptographic" part of the process. The one in
RFC 3797 depends on pre-announcement of the ordered list of volunteers.
The one you suggested depends on pre-announcement of the email address of
every volunteer. Neither is any more robust than the other against a failure
to make all the information necessary for public verification available in
advance, including the specification of the source of future
randomness.
Donald
If it ain't broke? How much more evidence of being broke do
we need?
The bug here is that the process is insufficiently robust
under operator error.
That is broke.
The underlying problem
here is the lack of auditability in the process.
There is a simple
fix here, eliminate the dependency on the list ordering and the system does
not have such a critical dependence on the operator.
Again nobody is
claiming anything dishonest has happened here. The concern is that the
accident could be repeated on purpose in the future to exclude undesirable
candidates. Having spent part of last month watching this attempted in
Alabama it is a real concern.
When something is broke admit the fact.
Prattling on about not fixing what aint broke only makes people
angry.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld
(www.good.com)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing
list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf