Closed mathiasbynens closed 3 years ago
As far as I understand the v6+
efforts aim at fixing the flaws (examples) that time-based v1
UUIDs had.
For the time being we intentionally DID NOT plan to provide time-based UUIDs due to the reasons outlined in the analysis of real world UUID usage.
That said there’s nothing preventing us to add support for other UUID versions in the future. However, so far the aim has been to focus on the parts of the spec that are most useful/used, not to provide a complete implementation.
Edit: But thanks for the pointer! I was aware of the initial v6 draft but not yet of the very recent updates to it.
Alright, thanks for confirming so quickly! Happy to close this issue.
Glad to see they're switching to [pseudo] random data for the node
field in the new UUID versions. 🎉
The explainer says:
I just wanted to double-check that the authors are aware of the ongoing IETF work on UUIDv6, since it sounds like a minor change we might as well include in this proposal as well (possibly instead of v4?). From https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/fqV3-FU7CbhshRFPRpILwIncXMw/:
(Disclaimer: I'm not at all familiar with this IETF work, I just wanted to make sure this is on y'alls radar in case it wasn't already.)