RE: Second Round ID Syntax vote declared valid

["Boyle, Stephen V." <sboyle@mitre.org>]

Thanks for bringing this up, Art. 

Rather than let the question float ... yes, we believe the issuance strategy for the variable length Option B should be explicitly discussed, and it will be coming up in the next couple of days.

What was in the announcement email was intended to be simply a reprise of what had been proffered for the vote. Our sense of the comments from the Board was that the issuance strategy for Option B was a separable topic and could be deferred until after the vote, so we did.

Thanks,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Art Manion [mailto:amanion@cert.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:52 PM
To: Boyle, Stephen V.
Cc: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com; cve-editorial-board-list
Subject: Re: Second Round ID Syntax vote declared valid

On 2013-06-07 13:33 , Boyle, Stephen V. wrote:

>> From: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com [mailto:Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com]
>> 
>> Ok, we have a format....  Congrats; Great.  Now we need to plan how
>> to communicate this to the rest of the world.

> All in the works. Stay tuned for both announcements and calls for
> Board participation in the coming few days.
...

> To reprise, Option B specifies the following:
> 
> -  Variable length
> - 4-digit Year + four fixed digits for IDs up to 9999
> - IDs 0001 through 0999 padded with leading zeros
> - IDs over 9999 will expand as needed, no leading zeros

There seemed to be an "issuance strategy" discussion about starting the
year off with id 1000, which is a neat hack to deal with leading zeros,
at the cost of making the 5 digit transition a little earlier.  Is this
something still under discussion/decision, or is the leading zero
element locked in with the selection of option B?  No need to respond if
this is coming up in the next set of announcements/calls.


 - Art