Subject: Re: [dispatch] UUID Version 6 Proposal

From: Brad Peabody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 12:23:21 -0700

Hi Murray,

There's actually been quite a bit of feedback on this overall - some of 
it in the IETF meetings, or on the mailing list.  Some of it in separate 
emails.  I've started trying to collect the information here 
https://github.com/uuid6/uuid6-ietf-draft as a way to succinctly 
describe all of the arguments and the outcome as regards the draft.  
(The draft itself will have background info, but I think there is more 
detail than is appropriate for a draft. I'm trying to document the 
various "why we are choosing do/not do it this way" items.  I think this 
helps both for when people agree with the decision and when they don't 
and would like to change it - at least the arguments are clearly laid 
out for discussion and not only tucked away in an email archive.)

I do plan on doing a new updated draft at some point, hopefully soon.

As regards DISPATCH, I'm not sure what the next step is.  One idea that 
was mentioned (for another item) on the IETF call was creating a non-WG 
mailing list to continue the discussion. Is that a possibility for UUID6?

Otherwise my plan was to collect up and organize all of the information 
that has arisen on this and then begin discussion again after the draft 
has been updated, and we have this clear and concise list of arguments 
that covers the points that have been brought up.  That way discussion 
that follows can be as focused as possible.

Best, Brad

On 4/29/20 10:30 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Brad Peabody <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Dale.  This first draft was intended to clearly outline the
>     problem, since the initial feedback I received on this idea from
>     general
>     mailing list could be summarized as "why do we need this".
>
>     I agree with your point though, it needs more detail.  I will make
>     it my
>     next step on this to outline the specific fields.  Even if I refer to
>     RFC 4122 I think summarizing what goes where in this document
>     makes good
>     sense.
>
>
> Is a new version of this planned based on the feedback received?
>
> As for process: This came up in the ART area of IETF 107, not 
> DISPATCH, so it was up for area-wide interest discussion but no 
> specific action yet.  I'd like to see what response there is to a 
> revision.
>
> -MSK