IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Uuidrev] Re: Concerns regarding backwards compatibility in draft-davis-uuidrev-uuid-long-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 15 May 2026 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: uuidrev@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: uuidrev@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36023EEF500A for <uuidrev@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2026 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778873353; bh=gAmK+E0CsL+5JMHHb7l5apra+uuOoGvImO1O9ayDRt0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=k+vIpcAJa4cxeV3Q+RQxp1QU7iGbX/9y1DLEdz0/kw9+v6nqkwVE/vWVy+L0nSR60 ayN/eihqhfeJ5rNryN9u6/QuFgwkC69jAJAbsySoUBXf+alXTWI3qvjt/OtkBvzAvw JD49gnuuDHEb2qLPDH9Nj04REHtFFSyc0TbNa1JQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b9oDVy-3W_tq for <uuidrev@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2026 12:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2C7FEEF4FF4 for <uuidrev@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2026 12:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710E61800F; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id Ubb_WR5bHFml; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1778873345; bh=siXzjQwO5XHuwta4ujcTPzzxMeBNyNnJcW8pg5JSbCg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hiaOHRJT5N2H5+L5RCodGQBwmfmi+8Ej7T5rqWvDoEJxVOOOXvI1FFSXQD9KGepI9 RnfR+AwEqYHEg8LnHMvchMSiQWH/54lD3AhfZylKMAlfmDqxDLoBDmG8xVluImk9Um lAd/6OBguX+p09/WbVdj4NZnlfm081FY62XCw+uKcpp+VkZhYJUbRf6KzzAfp8TtQ/ IuPaM33Sh1SRtFb6ys0OknztfV/ricYRzNr5/m4YiJGo94G4oDXAncTG64YaJlkt8M CREumeBSlv+3HpJsTWvghHRPDq8mKYmaftNdprTYgphAkBtAQgSUyknEX42zlhiWo9 ZZUFeJ1aZsJ4w==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF251800C; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3769D19D; Fri, 15 May 2026 15:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian Mottershead <bmotters@gmail.com>, uuidrev@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMKXc=Q_CyHf2idioEs3R230Cbw77LUQJhP2g-0gttMbM=976w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMKXc=Q_CyHf2idioEs3R230Cbw77LUQJhP2g-0gttMbM=976w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; Emacs 30.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 15:29:05 -0400
Message-ID: <12945.1778873345@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: W33DVEZGRVW6BJUIOWYGRZNORGXTQBDQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: W33DVEZGRVW6BJUIOWYGRZNORGXTQBDQ
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Uuidrev] Re: Concerns regarding backwards compatibility in draft-davis-uuidrev-uuid-long-00
List-Id: Revise Universally Unique Identifier Definitions <uuidrev.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uuidrev/euXqm-ChuHC6y7LknHQBWhdQ3fo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uuidrev>
List-Help: <mailto:uuidrev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:uuidrev-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uuidrev@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:uuidrev-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:uuidrev-leave@ietf.org>

Brian Mottershead <bmotters@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I would like to express a concern regarding
    > [draft-davis-uuidrev-uuid-long-00] the recent Internet-Draft specifying
    > "Long UUIDs". In essence, this draft proposes a new universally unique
    > identifier format to be standardized by the IETF. "Long UUIDs" are:

It's not chartered, it's an idea.... so this is exactly the time to talk
about this.  Thank you for the email.

    > Although the identifier is described as a "Long UUID", it is actually
    > an entirely new identifier format that is neither backwards- nor
    > forwards-compatible with standard UUIDs:

That's a fair comment.  I'm not sure what motivates 3968 bit sizes.
Do you feel that you have a need for things longer than 128, and if so, why?

I don't think that anyone expects Long UUIDs to be a drop-in.
I would suggest a name not including "UUID" in the name would help.
LUID, ULID, ???


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status