回复：CVE ID语法变更 - 投票选票（截止日期为4月14日，11:59 PM EDT）

我投票支持CA技术（又名CA）。投票下面。=================================================投票选票========================================================== ****************************************************************第一选择：选项A：选项A + 6位数字，带有0的示例：CVE-2014-000001，CVE-2014-000999，CVE-2014-001234，CVE-2014-001234，CVE-2014-010000，CVE-2014-054321，CVE-2014-099999，CVE-2014-100000，CVE-2014-123456，CVE-2014-9999999的原因（第一个选择）：简单，逻辑，直接，直接，直接，直接，直接，直接，直接，逻辑，直接，及其每个人都可以理解并过渡到。此选项也与现有/旧格式最相似。如果我们在一年内需要超过一百万个标识符，则可以通过添加更多领先的零（s）轻松扩展这种格式。此选项的另一个优点是它为标识符提供了已知的固定长度。 ***************************************************** SECOND CHOICE: OPTION B: Year + arbitrary digits, no leading 0's except IDs 1 to 999 Examples: CVE-2014-0001, CVE-2014-0999, CVE-2014-1234, CVE-2014-9999, CVE-2014-10000, CVE-2014-54321, CVE-2014-99999, CVE-2014-100000, CVE-2014-123456, CVE-2014-999999, CVE-2014-1234567 REASONS (second choice): This is the next most simple and straightforward option. This option is not preferred though because of the potential for truncation errors. ***************************************************** LAST CHOICE: OPTION C: Year + arbitrary digits + check digit Examples: CVE-2014-1-8, CVE-2014-999-3, CVE-2014-1234-3, CVE-2014-9999-3, CVE-2014-10000-8, CVE-2014-54321-5, CVE-2014-123456-5, CVE-2014-999999-5, CVE-2014-1234567-4 REASONS (last choice): This option is not recommended because it is overly complex by introducing an unnecessary algorithm. The check digit effectively addresses a problem that never existed, and instead would likely create problems ... such as CVE implementers/users mistaking it for a popular versioning scheme (as Brian Martin noted). ***************************************************** Thanks and regards, Ken Williams, Director CA Technologies Product Vulnerability Response Team CA Technologies Business Unit Operations wilja22@ca.com