On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:54:41AM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Willy,
> 
> Am 06.09.19 um 10:48 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > Let's simply declare that uuid(1) follows the v4 format of RFC4122 with
> > all fields random. Then we may add new types later on when needed.
> 
> I'm not sure whether that's a typo, but I'd suggest `uuid(4)` for a
> version 4 UUID.

That's what I really meant in order to support different formats that
one would like to implement, without having to be exclusively tied to
those described in RFC4122. But after thinking a bit about it, I guess
that if most users expect the number here to match the version this
would create more confusion to have a different one, and the
unique-id-format still allows to build a complete one from scratch for
those needing anything different.

Thus I guess I'm finally fine with leaving only the official version
number there and considering that anything different will continue to
be handled by manual configuration as has been done over the years.

We can then have 4 being the only one implemented for now, we can then
set it to the default one if unspecified, but I really want to support
such a parameter so that it's easy to extend the form once a new one
arrives.

Regards,
Willy

Reply via email to