RE: The CVE-10K Problem

• To: "cve-editorial-board-list" <cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
• Subject: RE: The CVE-10K Problem
• From: "Baker, Dave" <bakerd@mitre.org>
• Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:35:09 -0500
• Delivery-Date: Tue Jan 16 15:35:32 2007
• In-Reply-To: <200701122220.l0CMKSFu004616@faron.mitre.org>
• Sender: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE.ORG
• Thread-Index: Acc2l+e3B8eNQ3uVSKK4B8qwtXHgIgDFNXYg
• Thread-Topic: The CVE-10K Problem

I tend to agree with most of the comments about preferring solution 4.
I think Pascal's suggestion of moving to 6 digits, rather than 5 is a
good idea.  As far as the sorting problem goes, if a change in the 
naming schema is made, it could add leading zeros to older four number
identifiers to keep the sorting correct.  I think that if enough notice
is given ahead of time, as with the Candidate identifier issue, that it
should be of minimum impact.

Dave B.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 David W. Baker                                    bakerd@mitre.org
 Lead Information Systems Engineer
 G122 - Information Analysis and Engineering       (703) 983-3658
 The MITRE Corporation                             (703) 983-5864 (F)
 Mailstop T730                                     (877) 682-0632 (P)
 7515 Colshire Drive                               McLean, VA, 22102
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  

• References:
  • The CVE-10K Problem
    • From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@mitre.org>

• Prev by Date: RE: The CVE-10K Problem (fwd)
• Next by Date: Re: The CVE-10K Problem (fwd)
• Prev by thread: FW: The CVE-10K Problem
• Next by thread: Re: The CVE-10K Problem (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread