回复：CVE ID语法投票 - 结果和下一步

在2013年4月18日星期四，kent_landfield@mcafee.com写道：：同意。：：我可以看到，如果数字数量延长了，我可以将投票更改为A。：我回答说，我相信哈罗德（Harold）的想法是：重新评估选项A。如前所述，这对我来说很好。我没有在A中投票赞成数字＃。我投票赞成它用于显示它的标准方法。选项，如果选项B重做以删除所有尾随的零，那么我也很好，因为它将带有标准的显示格式（类型）。：Harold写道：：：我同意使用相同选项的revote可能会导致：或多或少相同的结果。但是，在审查了：投票的推理之后，投票选项B的人主要关注：避免再次进行更改（“未来证明”），而那些：投票选项A的人似乎主要关注该变量，如果两者都关注如上所述，已更改为6位的7位数为6位，而B根本没有领先的零。我真的很好奇人们如何投票。：使用他的逻辑，我们可以将其制作10多个数字，而不是用领先的：零来粘贴它。 Then it would be capped at a static length but we would only : have to use what we need. It could grow as needed and we would have the : future proofing that is a major reason stated by those who voted for : Options B. The end user would see a CVE ID that is reasonable from a : readability perspective, software would have a static length that we can : grow into. An approach like this could potentially go a long way to : getting to a consensus majority. : : Thoughts? Overall I like it. We're addressing the problems with the proposed solutions, and building on them, rather than coming up with additional. It would be great if every member would weigh in on the above, not as an official vote, but just to see if either has more benefit, or to add other options and ideas.