Re: [TECH] Duplicate candidates - which one should be preferred?

[Pascal Meunier <pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu>]

Yes, I think we should keep CAN-2001-0145 to become the CVE number, and have CAN-2000-0756 and CAN(CVE)-2001-0145 doubly linked with an explicit notice "These are the same vulnerabilities."

I think that this is an acceptable price to pay for a reduced lag time, if it happens only a few times per year. 

Cheers,
Pascal

At 11:36 PM -0500 2/27/01, Steven M. Christey wrote:
...
>The guidelines suggest that CAN-2001-0145 would be promoted instead of
>CAN-2000-0756.  So, is that reasonable?
>
>- Steve