回复：CVE ID语法 - 请投票

嗨，所有人，从学术研究方面:-) matt ========================================================================================================================= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ===首选：选项C原因（首选）：“任意数字”比固定宽度的6位数要难得多一些，但是它允许更多的增长 - 我 *希望 *我们永远不会超过999,999的漏洞，但是原则上，我不喜欢锁定固定尺寸的字段。至于校验数字的存在，这对于确保正确复制CVE数很有用。我假设为此的算法很简单（例如信用卡一号或奇偶校验），而不是添加sha whith whith hash的结果:-) *************************************************************第二个选择：选项B原因B（第二选择）：请参见上面的选项C。缺少支票数使此选择＃2。但是我认为这两个关闭了，如果他们中的任何一个都被采用，也不会哭泣。************************************************************** LAST CHOICE: Option A REASONS (last choice): The fixed field size grates on me. It would be easy to miscount the number of leading 0s, and as there is no check on the CVE number, this could mess up parsers that require all 6 digits to be present. And if the parser doesn't, this defaults to Option B. It's acceptable, but seems to me to be too rigid and easy to mess up.