Re: CVE ID Syntax change - Round two vote results and comments

["Andy Balinsky (balinsky)" <balinsky@cisco.com>]

--------------------------------------------------

- Bill Wall’s re-vote

 

APB> I agree that it was a mistake and that his 2nd vote should count. I was the one who pointed out to him the discrepancy between his vote and his stated text reasoning, leading me to think there might have been an error.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

- Issuance strategies for revised ID syntax identifiers

I think given all the expressed concern about how many pieces of software would break when faced with 5 or more digits, that we should start with CVE-2014-0001. Why throw away 999 perfectly good ID's? That would just make all that unfixed software break sooner. Nobody has had a problem with CVE-20XX-0001 in the past.

  

--------------------------------------------------

 

- 8 digit fixed ID field length of the revised Option A

I voted for A, so my vote would remain squarely in the minority.