再保险:CVE ID语法变化——第二轮投票投票- CERT(信息# 679180)

——开始PGP签名的消息- - - - - -哈希:SHA1 CERT / CC的投票和额外的评论。> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >选票投票= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =…> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > >第一选择:选择B >原因(首选):同样的基本原理,最后投票:> >灵活,选项B可以支持其他两个选项> >(前导零的小例外选项A > >没有期望在短期内显著变化CVE操作> >(除了CVE10K问题,解决了所有三个> >选项),我们最初的第一选择是选择一个,仅仅增加> >空间使用当前的语法。努力向前看,> >看起来可能数量显著增长区域或> >预订的数量(id是否> >赋值,仅保留将消耗IDs)可以> >方法的限制选项a .额外的好处,> >没有有效格式的变化,直到id > 10 k或> >指定保留。> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > >第二选择:选择a >原因(第二选择):只有两个选择。同时,选择8固定位数比原来的选项(6位数)固定,如果只是为了可读性。我承认的讽刺CERT的原始投票,表达担心6固定位数可能是不够的,但是处理扩张是更好的解决选项B和8固定位数可能导致印刷和阅读大量的0,没有明显的好处(除了也许截断检测)。额外的评论:我同意的情绪表达的其他董事会成员投票过程导致了一个“两害取其轻”的选择。我不知道新选项的决心,但我记得讨论7固定位数(为了安抚那些像我这样的人关心6位数),不是8。也有讨论的选项B没有*的* 0(作者可能意味着“领先”?),和建议开始计数在1000每年帮助转变现有的4个固定数字格式。 I am however comfortable enough with Option B, do not like the current Option A', am not aware of a significantly better alternative (given the unclear future of CVE expansion), and am willing to accept that the discussion and voting are a reasonably good group decision making process (some form of representative democracy). - Art -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -http://www.enigmail.net/iEYEARECAAYFAlGRI9QACgkQk / 8 fedbcakmevqcgnnd9id / 0 hr30iqjrwxdbs / 80 Dl0AmwVKVeDjiqAP3x7IWqMpxn1eSbu4 = haYd - - - - - - - - - - -端PGP签名