Common Data Format (CDF)

1. Common Data Format (CDF) Benjamin Long National Institute of Standards and Technology http://vote.nist.gov

2. VVSG 2.0 Requirements Chapter 6, Part one (“Integratability”) Overall goals: transparency and exchangeability of election process data Essential strategy: “within” + “between” Publish spec (syntax, semantics, data elements) + implementation (including source code) Essential contexts: Manufacturer – mandatory (“SHALL” requirements) Within = within each device in a product line Between = amongst devices in a product line Manufacturer-specific CDF Industry – recommended (“SHOULD” requirements) Within = within each manufacturer Between = amongst manufacturers Consensus-driven, public CDF 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 2

3. CDF Workshop Oct 2009, 2-day workshop Website: http://vote.nist.gov/CDF-WorkshopCallForPapers.htm Email list: cdf@nist.gov Objective: Called on key stakeholders and interested parties Held discussions regarding key requirements for a CDF Emphasis was on election official needs Key stakeholders Election officials, manufacturers, researchers, other interested parties Exploratory Collected information + case studies Identified needs, issues, high-level requirements 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 3

4. Issues Identified Inability to seamlessly and accurately share data between devices, processes, and product lines Inconsistent syntax, content, and usage between devices, processes, and product lines Need to “get the data out” quickly but accurately from all devices on election night 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 4

5. Potential Benefits Identified consistent, transparent, meaningful exchange and use of data between devices, processes, product lines, producers, and consumers increased abilities to audit and test with greater confidence and accuracy the possibility of componentized testing and certification reduced cost and time in development, testing, and certification increased interoperability in other desired applications, such as UOCAVA (voter registration, ballot delivery services) reduced errors from merging or manual translation of data increased support for alternative uses and applications 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 5

6. Candidate Requirements increased interoperability between products from same manufacturer and between products from different manufacturers ability for devices and processes to meaningfully communicate for a shared purpose based on shared data model having conceptual integrity public, open data format and source code; non-proprietary basis easily extensible and maintainable robust - no undocumented assumptions or requirements protected - tamper evident and tamper resistant preserve vote and voter privacy throughout election process support auditing and reporting throughout election process machine-readable and human-readable reports usable with respect to identified user roles and contexts 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 6

7. Standardization efforts: OASIS and IEEE OASIS EML is an international standard with limited implementation and experience in the U.S. – pilots underway in various states IEEE’s data format standard (project 1622) has restarted OASIS EML and Hart’s EDX were contributed to earlier P1622 effort EML = many XML schemas that define different aspects of election (e.g., ballot, cast vote, count) Just specifying EML is not enough – need to add constraints and usage guidelines, "localize" for U.S. usage, extend to fill in gaps, resolve any conflicts These additions, localizations, extensions, and resolutions must be harmonized among interoperating products (→ standardized) NIST to monitor IEEE and OASIS EML groups Continue consensus efforts on priorities and requirements Emphasize ease of use and interoperability as important requirements Current Standardized Data Formats

8. Remaining Issues (1 of 2) CDF Definition Completion of CDF definition , establishing development strategies Gathering of additional requirements Barriers to definition + widespread adoption of CDF varying priorities surrounding its definition, development, deployment, adoption, and maintenance need for a cohesive community effort/ownership to achieve these developmental and maintenance objectives many views regarding what content belongs there as well as preferences regarding how it should be included and why 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 8

9. Remaining Issues (2 of 2) Management of “scope creep” so that CDFs can be incrementally developed and adopted where they are most immediately needed Need to discuss/address questions regarding initial migration to an established CDF integration of CDF into existing processes, devices, and product lines ongoing maintenance and development of established CDF Methods of moving forward pilot projects UOCAVA newer technologies – ballot printers, e-pollbooks emerging uses and applications 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 9

10. Status and Next Steps Community Involvement mailing list (cdf@nist.gov) workshop report monitoring ongoing activities, including the specific CDF development efforts (OASIS EML, IEEE P1622) CDF Definition looking carefully into the issues identified researching promising lines of development gathering additional requirements Engaging election community in dialogue to clarify aspects of CDF architecture CDF development + adoption CDF management and maintenance 12/9-10/2009 TGDC Meeting Page 10