Re: CVE ID语法变化——第二轮投票选举(周三截止日期,2013年5月22日11:59 EDT)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =投票投票= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =输入您的选票在前面指定“指令”和“填写选票”部分。* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *的第一选择:选择B原因(首选):虽然只考虑技术因素,但我不能看到一个明显的原因应该选择A或B。我投票给B的主要原因是对人类更好的可用性。恐怕这个选项,笨拙了8位数,将阻碍CVE的使用。第二个因素是,它有一个类似的格式,这有效地延迟尽可能长时间的变化。* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *第二选择:选择一个原因(第二选择):——优势是编号很简单,与前面的格式一致,只在的前导零的数目不同。——有一个内置的完整性检查,虽然原始和有限的价值。8位数,我相信这个完整性检查的值小于可用性对人类造成的损失。如我之前所提到的,完整性检查可以提供单独的标识符。这允许选择一个更好的检查使他们更有用的机对机通信,而不影响可用性的人类。 Humans could also use that other integrity check if they wished. -There is no normalization of identifiers to make human usage easier (as stated in Steve's email).