TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Common Data Format (CDF) Update John P. Wack National Institute of Standards and Technology

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Page 2 Outline What is a CDF? Why have one? What’s in the VVSGs? Charge from EAC Background work Current plans

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 3 Electronic Election Data Includes Voter registration data base (VRDB) information Ballot definition and presentation Voted ballot information Tabulated election results Election management system (EMS) information System logs, audit data Much of it in proprietary, disparate formats

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 4 Common Data Format (CDF) An Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based format designed around the needs of elections Could be used as input into voting systems, e.g., from a VRDB that outputs in a CDF Could be used between devices, e.g., scanner could write data in a CDF to be read by an EMS Obviously, all must use the exact same CDF

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 5 Potential Benefits of a CDF Voting devices from different manufacturers could interoperate An interoperable CDF could help automate testing, better constrain testing costs Could expand certification model to devices as opposed to entire system

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 6 Could provide more transparency and audit capability to device operations Election jurisdictions could share data more easily with other DB’s, applications Could help bring potential manufacturers of specialty devices into the market Could open market to more manufacturers in general and empower election officials Potential Benefits of a CDF

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 7 VVSG 1.0, 1.1 have no CDF requirements VVSG 2.0 requires non-proprietary formats but not a common format for Data exported/exchanged between systems Election programming, export of cast vote records Reports, audit data Has a SHOULD requirement: Manufacturers SHOULD use a common format across their product line and in general What the VVSGs Say…

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Page 8 Charge from EAC EAC interested in interoperability An interoperable CDF could help automate testing, better constrain testing costs Could open market to more manufacturers Could expand certification model to components as opposed to entire system TGDC to reference a CDF in VVSG 2.0 TGDC/NIST to develop CDF specifications to assist Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) for electronic blank ballot delivery

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 9 CDF-Related History Two major CDF contenders Hart InterCivic EDX OASIS EML IEEE P.1622 Produced an initial draft based on EDX 1622 inactive 2008, draft is in limbo Active again in 2010, EML is also being researched and considered

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 10 EDX Hart InterCivic’s EDX (Election Data eXchange) First open published election data standard in the U.S., XML-based, used in Hart’s product line Hart would waive copyright interests if EDX was adopted, in whole or in part, as part of P.1622

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 11 OASIS EML OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) EML (Election Markup Language) XML-based, comprehensive, global framework Has seen increasing use since previous P.1622, some manufacturer support International framework, recently revised to address U.S. election environment Copyright issues being addressed OASIS has agreed to work with P.1622 to produce an aligned IEEE/OASIS draft (if IEEE adopts EML)

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 12 IEEE P.1622 Sponsoring Society: IEEE Computer Society/Standards Activities Board (C/SAB) Main goal: specify a standard or set of standards for a common data format for election systems P.1622 in 2007 created a draft standard based heavily on Hart InterCivic’s EDX P.1622 became inactive in 2008, draft was not put out for ballot No further action by Hart to support EDX as an IEEE standard since then OASIS EML now of more interest

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 13 Current IEEE P.1622 Became active again in 2010 with same goals as previous effort NIST, OASIS now working actively with P.1622 Some manufacturer participation including ES&S, Dominion, Hart, more is needed Aim is to facilitate more rapid deployment of a CDF Strategy is to develop 1622.x standards that address applications in elections Proposed application areas include UOCAVA blank ballot distribution for FVAP Epollbooks Event logging Election reporting

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011Page 14 Work with P.1622 to produce 1622.x standards, reference them in EAC VVSGs Assist in developing ‘use case’ documents and eventual schemas Work with FVAP in UOCAVA areas NIST/IEEE to develop use case, eventual schemas for a 1622.x UOCAVA CDF specification by Summer 2011 Need to decide soon on a format to use as basis for use case development Could develop reference implementations for 1622.x standards to facilitate adoption, testing Goal – develop and recommend a draft CDF standard in 2011 NIST/IEEE Strategy

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Eventual issue: CDF Interoperability Testing EAC goal includes device interoperability Interoperability testing is different form conformance testing NIST/IEEE strategy includes possibility of reference implementations An interoperability testing program may still be necessary Page 15

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Conclusions CDF needed to expand market, automate testing, run elections more efficiently TGDC to assist in CDF selection and FVAP UOCAVA specification NIST working with IEEE and OASIS currently using use case strategy Page 16

TGDC Meeting, Jan 2011 Discussion Page 17