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

[Mark J Cox <mjc@redhat.com>]

> =====================================================
> VOTING BALLOT
> =====================================================
>
> Enter your votes as specified in the preceding "Instructions" and
> "Filling out the ballot" sections.
>
>
>
> FIRST CHOICE:

Option B

> REASONS (first choice):

Consistent rule supports older named issues transparently and only expands 
as needed.  Most of our tools and processes already support this method.

> *****************************************************
>
> SECOND CHOICE:

Option A

> REASONS (second choice):

You end up with two valid formats depending on the year.  We think it's 
just as likely that CVE scope will be reduced rather than expanded, so we 
may find that future years the extra digits never get used anyway.

> *****************************************************
>
> LAST CHOICE:

Option C

> REASONS (last choice):

In the form presented they would require rework of many systems, not just 
ours, but to schemas such as CVRF.  If we want check digits we can 
implement them using Option B anyway, without any system or human even 
noticing (unless they specifically want to do a verification).