FW: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

[unifiedcompliance]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

This is from our lead analyst who did the research on the naming issues for Microsoft.

 

Do you want us to research this further?

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Hello Dorian,

 

I think Option 2 is the best option.  The mfr:product:build/version:sp suggested by Robert Neuman below I believe would make it easy to read and understand by all persons, including those who are not familiar with the nomenclature.  I found during the Microsoft research that they do have this information available on their website.  If you do a search, something will come up to give you the information that is needed.  I don't know if they have a support table for all of their products, but I did find one for Internet Explorer listing what versions and builds that they still support.  If you need more information, let me know.

 

Erwin

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/27/2009 1:51:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email] writes:

I need your thoughts on this ASAP.

What did you learn while doing the Microsoft research?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas R. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Option 2 has my vote as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Robert Neuman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew,  I agree option 2 and feel that references should be by
> mfr:product:build/version:sp instead of nomenclature.  This should be
> a standard format for the cpe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Buttner wrote:
>>
>> I encourage anyone with an opinion on this matter to share their 
>> thoughts
>> so that the correct decision can be made going forward.  I personally
>> think that a change to the current Microsoft Windows CPE Names 
>> would be
>> the correct way forward.  I think the change would make technical 
>> sense
>> and it will bring the Windows names into alignment with the 
>> specification.
>> This of course would mean deprecating all the existing names.  I am 
>> very
>> interested to see if you agree with this position, or if you think 
>> that
>> this might not be the smartest move to do at this time.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Buttner, Drew [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:43 AM
>>> To: cpe-discussion-list CPE Community Forum
>>> Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue
>>>
>>> ** reply by Friday June 5th **
>>>
>>> The creation of CPE Names for the different Microsoft operating 
>>> systems
>>> has been a source of discussion since the beginning of CPE.  In 
>>> October
>>> 2007 the issue was discussed in depth and it was decided to that 
>>> these
>>> names should be based off of the commonly known marketing names.  We
>>> have tried this approach for the past year and a half but some 
>>> issues
>>> still remain.
>>>
>>> We are realizing that names based off the marketing names are hard 
>>> to
>>> manage as marketing  names change frequently.  Marketing names 
>>> also lead
>>> to incorrect CPE Matching as a marketing name may stay the same 
>>> but the
>>> underlying code may change.  Or the marketing name may change even 
>>> if
>>> the code doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'd like to formally bring this up this issue to the CPE community 
>>> again
>>> and make sure we are still going down the correct path.  
>>> Obviously, one
>>> option will be to keep going down the current path.  But other 
>>> options
>>> would require changes to the current names.  This would mean a lot 
>>> of
>>> depreciation and potential vendor work to readjust their mapping.  
>>> The
>>> costs of this change may not be worth the benefits.  Unfortunately 
>>> I do
>>> not see the issues and/or discussions surrounding Microsoft names
>>> subsiding until we fix the root of the problem.  So at some point I
>>> think we are going to have to make some type of change.
>>>
>>> Some examples of the issues we currently face:
>>>
>>> - Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 which is actually based 
>>> off of
>>> the code for Windows Server 2003
>>>
>>> - determining which CPE Name to use being difficult as the technical
>>> information returned from a system query is not associated with 
>>> any CPE
>>> Name
>>>
>>> - inconsistencies when dealing with beta and pre-releases, for 
>>> example
>>> the current Windows 7 betas and if the OS marketing name will 
>>> actually
>>> be Windows 7
>>>
>>> - difficulty determining if certain updates/editions are really
>>> different versions, for example the R2 releases
>>>
>>> - inconsistency between operating system and application naming as 
>>> many
>>> of the Microsoft application names follow the technical name  (see
>>> Internet Explorer)
>>>
>>> Below are two options that I see as possible paths forward.  I urge
>>> everyone to share their opinion as we can only understand the best
>>> course by knowing how it affects the entire community.  If you have
>>> other ideas, please don't be afraid to share them as well.
>>>
>>> Discussion on this issue will end on Friday June 5th (3 weeks) at 
>>> which
>>> time a decision will be made based on community consensus.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 1
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Keep things the way they currently are.  Although not perfect, the
>>> current way of creating CPE Names for Microsoft operating systems 
>>> is a
>>> good balance between technical correctness and human 
>>> understanding.  In
>>> addition, the work required to deprecate the current Microsoft CPE 
>>> Names
>>> and remap to new names would not be worth the benefits of the 
>>> change.
>>>
>>> The CPE Specification should be updated to clarify how create CPE 
>>> Names
>>> for Microsoft operating systems and platforms that exhibit related
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 2
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> In order to put to bed the continued discussions on Microsoft 
>>> names we
>>> should change how we create these names.  We should leverage the
>>> internal version of the operating system and use that in the version
>>> component.  In a way, this is more true to the current CPE
>>> Specification.
>>>
>>> The <title> element in the dictionary would be used to hold the
>>> marketing name associated with each different version.  For example:
>>>
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600 -  Microsoft Windows XP
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:2180  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP2
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:5512  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP3
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790 -  Microsoft Windows Server 2003
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790:3959  -  Microsoft Windows 
>>> Server 2003
>>> SP2
>>>
>>> Note that this option would require deprecating all the existing
>>> Microsoft names in the CPE dictionary.  But this option better 
>>> aligns
>>> with the way the specification is currently written.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Again, I urge everyone to share their opinion by Friday June 5th.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Andrew Buttner
>>> The MITRE Corporation
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 781-271-3515
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:

http://n2.nabble.com/Microsoft-OS-Naming-Issue-tp2932305p2980950.html
> Sent from the CPE - Common Platform Enumeration mailing list archive 
> at Nabble.com.

 

---

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.

[Blake Frantz]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

By “mfr:product:build/version:sp” are we meaning:

 

microsoft:windows:CurrentVersion.CurrentBuildNumber:CSDBuildNumber

 

where CurrentVersion, CurrentBuildNumber, and CSDBuildNumber are taken from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion? Or something else?

 

Blake

 

 

From: dorian cougias [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:51 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] FW: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

 

This is from our lead analyst who did the research on the naming issues for Microsoft.

 

Do you want us to research this further?

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Hello Dorian,

 

I think Option 2 is the best option.  The mfr:product:build/version:sp suggested by Robert Neuman below I believe would make it easy to read and understand by all persons, including those who are not familiar with the nomenclature.  I found during the Microsoft research that they do have this information available on their website.  If you do a search, something will come up to give you the information that is needed.  I don't know if they have a support table for all of their products, but I did find one for Internet Explorer listing what versions and builds that they still support.  If you need more information, let me know.

 

Erwin

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/27/2009 1:51:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email] writes:

I need your thoughts on this ASAP.

What did you learn while doing the Microsoft research?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas R. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Option 2 has my vote as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Robert Neuman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew,  I agree option 2 and feel that references should be by
> mfr:product:build/version:sp instead of nomenclature.  This should be
> a standard format for the cpe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Buttner wrote:
>>
>> I encourage anyone with an opinion on this matter to share their 
>> thoughts
>> so that the correct decision can be made going forward.  I personally
>> think that a change to the current Microsoft Windows CPE Names 
>> would be
>> the correct way forward.  I think the change would make technical 
>> sense
>> and it will bring the Windows names into alignment with the 
>> specification.
>> This of course would mean deprecating all the existing names.  I am 
>> very
>> interested to see if you agree with this position, or if you think 
>> that
>> this might not be the smartest move to do at this time.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Buttner, Drew [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:43 AM
>>> To: cpe-discussion-list CPE Community Forum
>>> Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue
>>>
>>> ** reply by Friday June 5th **
>>>
>>> The creation of CPE Names for the different Microsoft operating 
>>> systems
>>> has been a source of discussion since the beginning of CPE.  In 
>>> October
>>> 2007 the issue was discussed in depth and it was decided to that 
>>> these
>>> names should be based off of the commonly known marketing names.  We
>>> have tried this approach for the past year and a half but some 
>>> issues
>>> still remain.
>>>
>>> We are realizing that names based off the marketing names are hard 
>>> to
>>> manage as marketing  names change frequently.  Marketing names 
>>> also lead
>>> to incorrect CPE Matching as a marketing name may stay the same 
>>> but the
>>> underlying code may change.  Or the marketing name may change even 
>>> if
>>> the code doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'd like to formally bring this up this issue to the CPE community 
>>> again
>>> and make sure we are still going down the correct path.  
>>> Obviously, one
>>> option will be to keep going down the current path.  But other 
>>> options
>>> would require changes to the current names.  This would mean a lot 
>>> of
>>> depreciation and potential vendor work to readjust their mapping.  
>>> The
>>> costs of this change may not be worth the benefits.  Unfortunately 
>>> I do
>>> not see the issues and/or discussions surrounding Microsoft names
>>> subsiding until we fix the root of the problem.  So at some point I
>>> think we are going to have to make some type of change.
>>>
>>> Some examples of the issues we currently face:
>>>
>>> - Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 which is actually based 
>>> off of
>>> the code for Windows Server 2003
>>>
>>> - determining which CPE Name to use being difficult as the technical
>>> information returned from a system query is not associated with 
>>> any CPE
>>> Name
>>>
>>> - inconsistencies when dealing with beta and pre-releases, for 
>>> example
>>> the current Windows 7 betas and if the OS marketing name will 
>>> actually
>>> be Windows 7
>>>
>>> - difficulty determining if certain updates/editions are really
>>> different versions, for example the R2 releases
>>>
>>> - inconsistency between operating system and application naming as 
>>> many
>>> of the Microsoft application names follow the technical name  (see
>>> Internet Explorer)
>>>
>>> Below are two options that I see as possible paths forward.  I urge
>>> everyone to share their opinion as we can only understand the best
>>> course by knowing how it affects the entire community.  If you have
>>> other ideas, please don't be afraid to share them as well.
>>>
>>> Discussion on this issue will end on Friday June 5th (3 weeks) at 
>>> which
>>> time a decision will be made based on community consensus.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 1
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Keep things the way they currently are.  Although not perfect, the
>>> current way of creating CPE Names for Microsoft operating systems 
>>> is a
>>> good balance between technical correctness and human 
>>> understanding.  In
>>> addition, the work required to deprecate the current Microsoft CPE 
>>> Names
>>> and remap to new names would not be worth the benefits of the 
>>> change.
>>>
>>> The CPE Specification should be updated to clarify how create CPE 
>>> Names
>>> for Microsoft operating systems and platforms that exhibit related
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 2
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> In order to put to bed the continued discussions on Microsoft 
>>> names we
>>> should change how we create these names.  We should leverage the
>>> internal version of the operating system and use that in the version
>>> component.  In a way, this is more true to the current CPE
>>> Specification.
>>>
>>> The <title> element in the dictionary would be used to hold the
>>> marketing name associated with each different version.  For example:
>>>
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600 -  Microsoft Windows XP
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:2180  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP2
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:5512  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP3
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790 -  Microsoft Windows Server 2003
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790:3959  -  Microsoft Windows 
>>> Server 2003
>>> SP2
>>>
>>> Note that this option would require deprecating all the existing
>>> Microsoft names in the CPE dictionary.  But this option better 
>>> aligns
>>> with the way the specification is currently written.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Again, I urge everyone to share their opinion by Friday June 5th.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Andrew Buttner
>>> The MITRE Corporation
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 781-271-3515
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/Microsoft-OS-Naming-Issue-tp2932305p2980950.html
> Sent from the CPE - Common Platform Enumeration mailing list archive 
> at Nabble.com.

 

 

---

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.

[McCormick, Christopher [USA]]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

I am in agreement with the proposed idea of option #2 as well.  If major.minor.build.servicepack can easily be tied back to a number structure and represented in what is currently known as the version component on CPE 2.2 I think that's a great idea.  If the version number represents all the other details behind a marketing name including editions, languages, service packs, builds, etc. why not choose that technical representation since each unique number would identify a discrete application, o/s, or hardware.

 

  I have been involved with the CPE for almost one full year now and constantly try to apply the current naming issues to other realms of business that may have had similar issues to identify distinct, unique entities.  For instance, serial bar coding or even universal product codes (UPC).   Without knowing enough about these systems I cannot comment on the history of their evolution to where they are used today but what I do know is that every single entity I purchase in a retail setting has one of these bar codes or UPC associated with it.  These bar codes and UPCs are used to differentiate from one entity to another.  The main reason I see these as successful are still used in retail is likely because each individual number representation is unique and not associated with another physical entity.

 

The reason I bring up the UPC or barcoding topic is because I'd just love to see CPE adopted to a point with vendors/developers/manufacturers at the time they make a release of a flagship product or otherwise, drop that CPE representation right on the box to distinguish what it is, systems it can run on, etc.  This vision I have with CPE being adopted at that level would also ensure (with some level of government directive maybe?) that each authoritative source be the one who represents their product, numerically.  This could eliminate the need to make inferences about a particular o/s, application, hardware because the vendor would would have a distinguished identifier that they dictate.

 

Chris

 

 

---

From: Blake Frantz [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:53 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] FW: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

By “mfr:product:build/version:sp” are we meaning:

 

microsoft:windows:CurrentVersion.CurrentBuildNumber:CSDBuildNumber

 

where CurrentVersion, CurrentBuildNumber, and CSDBuildNumber are taken from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion? Or something else?

 

Blake

 

 

From: dorian cougias [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:51 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] FW: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

 

This is from our lead analyst who did the research on the naming issues for Microsoft.

 

Do you want us to research this further?

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: FW: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Hello Dorian,

 

I think Option 2 is the best option.  The mfr:product:build/version:sp suggested by Robert Neuman below I believe would make it easy to read and understand by all persons, including those who are not familiar with the nomenclature.  I found during the Microsoft research that they do have this information available on their website.  If you do a search, something will come up to give you the information that is needed.  I don't know if they have a support table for all of their products, but I did find one for Internet Explorer listing what versions and builds that they still support.  If you need more information, let me know.

 

Erwin

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/27/2009 1:51:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email] writes:

I need your thoughts on this ASAP.

What did you learn while doing the Microsoft research?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas R. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue

Option 2 has my vote as well.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Robert Neuman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew,  I agree option 2 and feel that references should be by
> mfr:product:build/version:sp instead of nomenclature.  This should be
> a standard format for the cpe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Buttner wrote:
>>
>> I encourage anyone with an opinion on this matter to share their 
>> thoughts
>> so that the correct decision can be made going forward.  I personally
>> think that a change to the current Microsoft Windows CPE Names 
>> would be
>> the correct way forward.  I think the change would make technical 
>> sense
>> and it will bring the Windows names into alignment with the 
>> specification.
>> This of course would mean deprecating all the existing names.  I am 
>> very
>> interested to see if you agree with this position, or if you think 
>> that
>> this might not be the smartest move to do at this time.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Buttner, Drew [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 7:43 AM
>>> To: cpe-discussion-list CPE Community Forum
>>> Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] Microsoft OS Naming Issue
>>>
>>> ** reply by Friday June 5th **
>>>
>>> The creation of CPE Names for the different Microsoft operating 
>>> systems
>>> has been a source of discussion since the beginning of CPE.  In 
>>> October
>>> 2007 the issue was discussed in depth and it was decided to that 
>>> these
>>> names should be based off of the commonly known marketing names.  We
>>> have tried this approach for the past year and a half but some 
>>> issues
>>> still remain.
>>>
>>> We are realizing that names based off the marketing names are hard 
>>> to
>>> manage as marketing  names change frequently.  Marketing names 
>>> also lead
>>> to incorrect CPE Matching as a marketing name may stay the same 
>>> but the
>>> underlying code may change.  Or the marketing name may change even 
>>> if
>>> the code doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'd like to formally bring this up this issue to the CPE community 
>>> again
>>> and make sure we are still going down the correct path.  
>>> Obviously, one
>>> option will be to keep going down the current path.  But other 
>>> options
>>> would require changes to the current names.  This would mean a lot 
>>> of
>>> depreciation and potential vendor work to readjust their mapping.  
>>> The
>>> costs of this change may not be worth the benefits.  Unfortunately 
>>> I do
>>> not see the issues and/or discussions surrounding Microsoft names
>>> subsiding until we fix the root of the problem.  So at some point I
>>> think we are going to have to make some type of change.
>>>
>>> Some examples of the issues we currently face:
>>>
>>> - Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 which is actually based 
>>> off of
>>> the code for Windows Server 2003
>>>
>>> - determining which CPE Name to use being difficult as the technical
>>> information returned from a system query is not associated with 
>>> any CPE
>>> Name
>>>
>>> - inconsistencies when dealing with beta and pre-releases, for 
>>> example
>>> the current Windows 7 betas and if the OS marketing name will 
>>> actually
>>> be Windows 7
>>>
>>> - difficulty determining if certain updates/editions are really
>>> different versions, for example the R2 releases
>>>
>>> - inconsistency between operating system and application naming as 
>>> many
>>> of the Microsoft application names follow the technical name  (see
>>> Internet Explorer)
>>>
>>> Below are two options that I see as possible paths forward.  I urge
>>> everyone to share their opinion as we can only understand the best
>>> course by knowing how it affects the entire community.  If you have
>>> other ideas, please don't be afraid to share them as well.
>>>
>>> Discussion on this issue will end on Friday June 5th (3 weeks) at 
>>> which
>>> time a decision will be made based on community consensus.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 1
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Keep things the way they currently are.  Although not perfect, the
>>> current way of creating CPE Names for Microsoft operating systems 
>>> is a
>>> good balance between technical correctness and human 
>>> understanding.  In
>>> addition, the work required to deprecate the current Microsoft CPE 
>>> Names
>>> and remap to new names would not be worth the benefits of the 
>>> change.
>>>
>>> The CPE Specification should be updated to clarify how create CPE 
>>> Names
>>> for Microsoft operating systems and platforms that exhibit related
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> OPTION 2
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> In order to put to bed the continued discussions on Microsoft 
>>> names we
>>> should change how we create these names.  We should leverage the
>>> internal version of the operating system and use that in the version
>>> component.  In a way, this is more true to the current CPE
>>> Specification.
>>>
>>> The <title> element in the dictionary would be used to hold the
>>> marketing name associated with each different version.  For example:
>>>
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600 -  Microsoft Windows XP
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:2180  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP2
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.1.2600:5512  -  Microsoft Windows XP SP3
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790 -  Microsoft Windows Server 2003
>>> cpe:/o:microsoft:windows:5.2.3790:3959  -  Microsoft Windows 
>>> Server 2003
>>> SP2
>>>
>>> Note that this option would require deprecating all the existing
>>> Microsoft names in the CPE dictionary.  But this option better 
>>> aligns
>>> with the way the specification is currently written.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Again, I urge everyone to share their opinion by Friday June 5th.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Andrew Buttner
>>> The MITRE Corporation
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 781-271-3515
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:

http://n2.nabble.com/Microsoft-OS-Naming-Issue-tp2932305p2980950.html
> Sent from the CPE - Common Platform Enumeration mailing list archive 
> at Nabble.com.

 

 

---

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.