On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com wrote:If both were changed as mentioned above, where A was 7 digits intead of 6,
and B had no leading zeros at all. I am really curious how people would
: Using his logic, we could make it 10+ digits and not pad it with leading
: zeros. áThen it would be capped at a static length but we would onlyOverall I like it. We're addressing the problems with the proposed
: have to use what we need. áIt could grow as needed and we would have the
: future proofing that is a major reason stated by those who voted for
: Options B. áThe 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.
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.