> On 12 Mar 2024, at 10:53, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> It does not strike me as a good idea to rush an implementation without
> a specification officially approved because there is always a risk of
> shipping something that's non-compliant into core. But perhaps I am
> missing something on the RFC side?
Upthread one of document’s authors commented:
> On 14 Feb 2023, at 19:13, Kyzer Davis (kydavis) <kyda...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> The point is 99% of the work since adoption by the IETF has been ironing out
> RFC4122's problems and nothing major related to UUIDv6/7/8 which are all in a
> very good state.
And also
> On 22 Jan 2024, at 09:22, Nikolay Samokhvalov <n...@postgres.ai> wrote:
>
> And many libraries are already including implementation of UUIDv7 – here are
> some examples:
>
> - https://www.npmjs.com/package/uuidv7
> - https://crates.io/crates/uuidv7
> - https://github.com/google/uuid/pull/139
So at least reviewing patch and agreeing on chosen methods and constants makes
sense.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
