We greatly appreciate the discussion that has taken place since the vote, and we are (as always) truly grateful for a thoughtful, engaged Board; thanks to all.
MITRE agrees that a second vote is necessary and prudent, and we agree that Option C has been eliminated from further consideration.
With regard to the identifier length discussion: one email quoted before lays out the scale of the fixed, 6-digit number field of the identifier. Paraphrased, anything more than
999,999 CVE IDs in one calendar year would necessitate the issuance of 3,968 CVEs per day presuming the normal 252 MITRE work days per year. (The “over 2,700” original number was based on 365 work days.)
While the idea of ~4,000 CVEs per work day seems incredible to me, I was also there at the beginning when it was decided that 10,000 CVEs per year was outlandish. I am very sympathetic
to the point that we don’t know what we’re going to be doing in the future. As one possible example, some people have talked about a “global” CVE with tiers of CNAs (which I prefer to not discuss here and now). I personally don’t think such a hierarchical
scheme is practical or feasible (beyond the current two levels of MITRE and CNAs), but I didn’t think > 9,999 CVEs per year was practical or feasible, either. In addition, we have been working on our infrastructure, work flow, and staffing so that we are positioned
to increase our throughput and potentially decrease response time based on available funding.
I haven’t heard about people trying to save bits on disk for quite a while, so the idea of 7, 8, 9 … characters in a fixed-length number field of the identifier feels kinda the
same to me, especially when considering the ID field length as a percentage of the average number of characters in a CVE entry (ID, Description, References).
We would really like to see some responses to Kent’s suggestion of a poll – a straw vote, if you will. Kent’s suggestion was:
Can we have a quick poll on the combined set of existing options and the ones Art has listed below? I'd think a re-whittling of the choices may get us to a better place to conduct a vote.
Do you desire a static length of the CVE Ids?
--Yes — No
If so, what length do you feel would be acceptable to you?
-- 6 — 7 — 12 — More? -- Something else?
Put another way:
- Do you prefer fixed length or variable length?
- If you prefer fixed length, what field length do you consider sufficient?
- Any comment on Adam’s suggestion of trailing zeros?
We’d like to hear from the Board on this so that we can shape the set of options for consideration for a second vote. Both eligible Board voters and non-voters are welcome to
comment. Your prompt and thoughtful attention on the topic will be very much appreciated.
Thank you again for your engagement and thoughtful responses.
CVE Project Leader