Adjust line breaks in CVE report template

diff --git a/.gitlab/issue_templates/Security_issue.md b/.gitlab/issue_templates/Security_issue.md
index 1ec1ea4d7cbd35e3109314c70aeff7f0fc3b2510..ae5422a14e4d4cf3d5ca068b4b12845d02140e9b 100644 (file)
--- a/.gitlab/issue_templates/Security_issue.md
+++ b/.gitlab/issue_templates/Security_issue.md
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ### Summary
-
-<!-- Concisely summarize the bug encountered,
-preferably in one paragraph or less. -->
+<!--
+Concisely summarize the bug encountered,
+preferably in one paragraph or less.
+-->
 
 ### BIND versions affected
-
 <!--
 Make sure you are testing with the **latest** supported version of BIND.
 See https://kb.isc.org/docs/supported-platforms for the current list.
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ Paste the output of `named -V` here.
 -->
 
 ### Preconditions and assumptions
-
 <!--
 Is a specific setup needed?
 
@@ -29,7 +28,6 @@ E.g. Attacker can affect system clock on the server running BIND.
 -->
 
 ### Attacker's abilities
-
 <!--
 What resources does an attacker need to have under their control to mount this attack?
 
@@ -57,7 +55,6 @@ traffic drops to 1/1000 within the first minute of the attack.
 
 
 ### Steps to reproduce
-
 <!--
 This is extremely important! Be precise and use itemized lists, please.
 
@@ -87,12 +84,13 @@ The server crashes immediately.
 ### What is the expected *correct* behavior?
 
 <!--
-If the attack causes resource exhaustion, what do you think the correct behavior should be? Should BIND refuse to process more requests?
+If the attack causes resource exhaustion, what do you think the correct
+behavior should be? Should BIND refuse to process more requests?
+
 What heuristic do you propose to distinguish legitimate and attack traffic?
 -->
 
 ### Relevant logs
-
 <!--
 Please provide log files from your testing. Include full named logs and also
 the output from any testing tools (e.g. dnsperf, DNS Shotgun, kxdpgun, etc.)
@@ -107,16 +105,31 @@ gather system-wide statistics.
 
 ### Coordination
 - Does this issue affect multiple implementations?
-<!-- Issues affecting multiple implementations require very careful coordination. We have to make the information does not leak to public until vendors are ready to release fixed versions. If that's the case we need to know about this situation as soon as possible to start (confidential!) coordination process within DNS-OARC and other suitable fora. -->
+<!--
+Issues affecting multiple implementations require very careful coordination. We
+have to make the information does not leak to public until vendors are ready to
+release fixed versions. If that's the case we need to know about this situation
+as soon as possible to start (confidential!) coordination process within
+DNS-OARC and other suitable fora.
+-->
 
 - Have you shared the information with anyone else?
-<!-- Have you informed other affected vendors? Or maybe submitted a paper for review? -->
+<!--
+Have you informed other affected vendors? Or maybe submitted a paper for
+review?
+-->
 
 - What is your plan to publicize this issue?
-<!-- E.g. we plan to go public during conference XYZ on 20XX-XX-XX -->
+<!--
+E.g. we plan to go public during conference XYZ on 20XX-XX-XX
+-->
 
 ### Acknowledgements
-<!-- Please specify whether and how you would like to be publicly credited with discovering the issue. We normally use the format "First_name Last_name, Company or Team".  -->
+<!--
+Please specify whether and how you would like to be publicly credited with
+discovering the issue. We normally use the format:
+First_name Last_name, Company_or_Team.
+-->
 
 <!-- DO NOT modify the following two lines. -->