RE: Second Round ID Syntax vote declared valid
Thanks for bringing this up, Art.
Rather than let the question float ... yes, we believe the issuance strategy for the variable length Option B should be explicitly discussed, and it will be coming up in the next couple of days.
What was in the announcement email was intended to be simply a reprise of what had been proffered for the vote. Our sense of the comments from the Board was that the issuance strategy for Option B was a separable topic and could be deferred until after the vote, so we did.
From: Art Manion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:52 PM
To: Boyle, Stephen V.
Cc: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com; cve-editorial-board-list
Subject: Re: Second Round ID Syntax vote declared valid
On 2013-06-07 13:33 , Boyle, Stephen V. wrote:
>> From: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com [mailto:Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com]
>> Ok, we have a format.... Congrats; Great. Now we need to plan how
>> to communicate this to the rest of the world.
> All in the works. Stay tuned for both announcements and calls for
> Board participation in the coming few days.
> To reprise, Option B specifies the following:
> - Variable length
> - 4-digit Year + four fixed digits for IDs up to 9999
> - IDs 0001 through 0999 padded with leading zeros
> - IDs over 9999 will expand as needed, no leading zeros
There seemed to be an "issuance strategy" discussion about starting the
year off with id 1000, which is a neat hack to deal with leading zeros,
at the cost of making the 5 digit transition a little earlier. Is this
something still under discussion/decision, or is the leading zero
element locked in with the selection of option B? No need to respond if
this is coming up in the next set of announcements/calls.