Re: UUID version 6 proposal, initial feedback

[Brad Peabody <[e-mail]>]

>>> What I laid out is essentially a collection of options that seem to come up time and again dealing with unique identifiers.? I think there is benefit in standardizing it.

>> Considerations in designing unique identifiers sounds like it could be a worthwhile RFC. I just don?t think they?re UUID?s.

> I concur. I think it would be a better proposal if they were called something else.

Cool - I will come up with some ideas for different names and send those 
around soon.


> As as you point at in [1], it's trivial to covert between your "version 6" and the V1 UUID --- it's just a matter of swapping the bytes. http://gh.peabody.io/uuidv6/
> /dev/urandom is a Linux specific thing.  The better choice is libuuid.

To clarify - the information at http://gh.peabody.io/uuidv6/ is out of 
date, and the new proposal (see 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bctTr14CrxzjHUIRAkT8jB46Jomr9aB2JQ9hDCh3cJg 
) includes things like variable amounts of random data and alternate 
text encodings - stuff that will almost certainly never end up in 
libuuid.  The issue being that many applications need something like a 
UUID but can't use an actual UUID for one reason or another (e.g. 
sorting properties, insufficient unguessability, too long, etc.); thus 
the new proposal.

I think it's pretty clear all around though that calling this new thing 
a UUID is just confusing, so yeah I'll think of some other name ideas.