-
There's a lot to like about Draft 2, version 7 UUIDs. They solve many of the main issues people have raised in version 1. I especially appreciate the fractional binary format for subsecond values. …
-
Playing Devil's Advocate: One of my first impressions of this proposal is that introducing three new versions seems "excessive".
Collectively, these three versions introduce a number of much-needed…
-
# Change Proposal Template
#### Source (Select one.)
- [ ] IETF Published Draft
- [x] Work in Progress Draft
#### Change Reason (Select all that apply.)
- [ ] Typos and grammatical issues
…
-
It would be much better to take "ULID with sequence" as the basis for RFC: [https://github.com/Sofya2003/ULID-with-sequence](https://github.com/Sofya2003/ULID-with-sequence)
-
According to the discussions here https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/pull/21 and the current spec:
https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft/blob/master/draft-peabody-dispatch-new-uuid-forma…
-
Treat UUID like a black box:
- Disallow extracting timestamp or any other data from UUID
- Remove _ver_, _var_ and _node_ from the RFC (like in UUIDv4)
- But allow database shard on left part of …
-
@bradleypeabody, @kyzer-davis,
This is a continuation of my comment on PR #10
I thought of another approach. Instead of treating the integer part and the fractional part separately, the entire t…
-
@kyzer-davis and @edo1 @sergeyprokhorenko @fabiolimace @nerg4l @broofa @nurked (hopefully I didn't miss anyone).
I typed up a summary of what I suggest should go into a new draft, along with the ra…
-
Hello,
I understand that this may be beyond the scope of what you intended with your draft, but since it's slated to update 4122, and it has an impact on UUIDv6, I thought I'd drop this here in cas…
-
Hi, I'm a ULID user and want to know progress on this UUID v6 draft.
The draft seems expired, so I guess that new draft need to be submitted again:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peabody-disp…