Re: CVE ID Syntax change - Round two vote results and comments
On 2013-05-23 15:29 , Boyle, Stephen V. wrote:
> - Bill Wall's re-vote
> As such, we believe that the feeling of the Board to date is that Bill's
> (second) vote for the revised Option A is valid. If there is any dissent
> with the proposed formal acceptance of Bill's re-vote, Board members should
> please post your thoughts and reasons to this list.
> - Issuance strategies for revised ID syntax identifiers
> Several questions have been raised about how we would specifically propose
> to issue IDs based on the new ID syntax. For example, would Option B IDs
> begin being issued as CVE-2014-0001 or CVE-2014-1000?
Slight preference for the latter. No harm dropping 999 IDs, and it
seems cleaner than having a rule about when to add leading zeros.
> The question we would like to put to the Board is: "Would a more complete
> discussion of issuance strategies prior to the voting period have affected
> the way you voted?"
Another point -- I was one of the board members wondering where the 8
fixed digit option A for the second vote came from, thanks for the