> On 08 Feb 2016, at 10:29 , Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 2) Misrepresenting the way the UUID was generated (a combination of node >> identifier + timestamp + random value, similar to type 3, but with >> differently sized/ordered fields) by marking it as being of type 4, which is >> defined to be UUID consisting of random bytes. >> IOW, I think it should be marked as type 0 instead of 4, so for the 1 person >> in each country who might be found to assume something about the >> implementation based on the type field, won't later feel he's been duped >> when checking the generator. > > OK, I certainly want to change the type. Thing is, I cannot find a reference > to type 0 anywhere that I am looking (I mostly used > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier). Where did you > find a definition of type 0 ? Or would that be a way to say 'no specific > type' then ?
My rationale was that it is currently unassigned, and the least likely number to be chosen as identifier by new versions of the standard. IOW, for those who care, it might raise a "hmm, this is strange, better check the source", upon which they will discover it is generated in a non-standard fashion (but can verify for themselves it is generated in a way still pretty much guaranteed to be unique), and the rest... well, they can (most probably) keep on living happily without ever seeing a collision. Cheers, Henry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
