Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Whether or not the procedure in that (draft-hoffman-...) is useful for 
other people I can't say.  But it removes may elements that the 
community felt were important in defining the nomcom process and rfc 
3797.  For example, you removed all of the challenge periods and 
challenge criteria.  And your educed the random numbers to one source, 
without specifying anything about the required degree of randomness in 
that source.  While I am not expert on the matter, the reason that was 
stated for having multiple sources was to get enough reliable randomness 
into the mix.

Yours,

Joel

PS: discussing here because you posted here; probably should be moved to 
gendispatch.

On 5/29/2023 6:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> By a weird coincidence, I was creating a new, simpler choosing protocol when this discussion came up. A colleague was seeing if RFC 3979 fit their need to select m of n people, but had problems with the implementation of 3797. When I looked at draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-02, I saw that the pitfalls that were in 3797 were still there, and this spurred me to come up with something as good but simpler.
>
> Please see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-genarea-random-candidate-selection/>. It may be of interest for the discussion of draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis. Please note that the proposal could be turned into an RFC even if the IETF wants to keep using the protocol in draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis; there is good reason to have a simpler protocol defined for others who want to have the same result as what we have for NomCom, but using an easier-to-understand alternative.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>