Re: The CVE-10K Problem

• To: pmeunier <pmeunier@cerias.net>
• Subject: Re: The CVE-10K Problem
• From: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@rcf-smtp.mitre.org>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:48:42 -0500 (EST)
• cc: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@rcf-smtp.mitre.org>, cve-editorial-board-list <cve-editorial-board-list@LISTS.MITRE.ORG>
• Delivery-Date: Thu Jan 18 12:48:43 2007
• In-Reply-To: <45AF6E60.2010400@cerias.net>
• References: <C1D2BEFA.39AF%alfred_huger@symantec.com> <45AF6E60.2010400@cerias.net>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, pmeunier wrote:

> 	From all the replies, it seems that most of this board stopped reading
> after your list of 4 options and missed your additional request for
> thoughts regarding funding and related issues.  I suggest you resend
> that as a separate message.

I wanted to raise the latter point as a consideration.  This year,
probably sooner rather than later, Dave Mann and I expect to be raising
the larger funding issues, and considering strategies for coping.

The Board seems fairly united on the numbering scheme, so we'll make an
announcement and see if general CVE consumers have any major issues.

- Steve

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The CVE-10K Problem
    • From: pmeunier <pmeunier@cerias.net>
  • RE: The CVE-10K Problem
    • From: <Kent_Landfield@mcafee.com>

• References:
  • Re: The CVE-10K Problem
    • From: Alfred Huger <alfred_huger@symantec.com>
  • Re: The CVE-10K Problem
    • From: pmeunier <pmeunier@cerias.net>

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