IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: UUID version 6 proposal, initial feedback

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 08 February 2020 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1F912008B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBSLLbg5VyXG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:16:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F21D01200B3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 0180Gqhc004621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 19:16:55 -0500
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:16:52 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Brad Peabody <bradgareth@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: UUID version 6 proposal, initial feedback
Message-ID: <20200208001652.GJ14382@mit.edu>
References: <D0894516-3F20-4545-BD7D-BE4FA96FAF75@gmail.com> <CABkgnnXSxqqinyK4QiwVv-VuzAraHFUGCrm0K0e9dJX_F80bWg@mail.gmail.com> <D3517A2C-1FCC-42D2-9AB6-248680BE89E1@gmail.com> <c5ba6f5d-7c61-bfdf-63e6-be7d640ee50c@gmail.com> <6E165220-7D1F-4AD8-B4F3-DDCB8F1DA6E2@akamai.com> <b4b73e11-7e21-03ae-0ebf-badcc2bf9d7e@gmail.com> <E49706DE-5A3A-4403-9A0B-F9F4804CFEA1@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <E49706DE-5A3A-4403-9A0B-F9F4804CFEA1@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/txKImbMqMW4qSbi-v1U_TCDjv08>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 00:17:00 -0000

On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 02:41:12AM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>   *   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.

Taking a bit of a tangent, you may find
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-04 an
interesting read, even if it's not directly related to this work.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email