well I am sorry you see it that way gmaxwell
<gmaxwell> Graet: "Meh" on that. It's getting called a serious vulnerability in part because of the preferences of the person who reported it. I wouldn't have called it that on my own, and it's of a class of DOS attacks that have been discussed in public before.
some other stuff not related
<Graet> well gmaxwell we need some (oh god again) standards - so ppls opinions have some meaning
<Graet> if a dev announcves a serious vuln - it shouldnt be a "matter of opinion"
Dear gmaxwell, Graet, and all,
The fact that we do not have a standard to describe how severe a vuln is, is the source of the problem. I consider the vulnerability SERIUS (as any other vulnerability) as Gavin posted. But SERIUS is not the same as SEVERE. I don't consider the vuln severe.
I don't remember having pressed anyone to say the vuln had to be called in any way. I just asked for akwnoledgement!
I tried to establish a severity standard in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79830.0
But consensus was not reached.
I think I will formalize it to help the next time a vuln is found.
Nevertheless the page https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs
describes the vuln perfectly: "Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients".
No more, no less.
And thanks Gavin and the dev team for fixing the vuln for the good of all of us.
Thank you Sergio_Demian_Lerner you seem to understand my point