RE: CVE ID Syntax Change - Voting Ballot (Deadline April 14, 11:59PM EDT)

["Booth, Harold" <harold.booth@nist.gov>]

=====================================================
VOTING BALLOT
=====================================================

Enter your votes as specified in the preceding "Instructions" and "Filling out the ballot" sections.



FIRST CHOICE:

Option B

REASONS (first choice):

Large address space removes the need to revisit this issue in the future. We would prefer that with this choice a reasonable constraint be provided that caps the size to a large but reasonable number of digits (19 digits would fit into a 64-bit integer value). We have some concern that absent this constraint vendors will choose their own limits potentially choosing too small of a value without other guidance.

*****************************************************

SECOND CHOICE:

Option C

REASONS (second choice):

Same as above, but we recognize the challenges a check digit would introduce for some communities of use.


*****************************************************

LAST CHOICE:

Option A

REASONS (last choice):

  The suggested address space available with this option does not provide enough room for alternative usage patterns and may force us to revisit the identifier syntax again for the same reasons. In our view this option would be better if a larger address space was chosen. 19 digits, which would fit into a 64-bit integer, would likely be sufficient.