Hi Maurice,

On 2021-04-14 12:17:02, you wrote to me:

 WvV>> It should take into account it can be called multiple times
 WvV>> within the same second.

 MK> Sure.  How about this?

 MK>   6076da69-1689a348
 MK>   6076da69-16bf0244
 MK>   ...

It doesn't conform to the standard.

 WvV>> If you do that correctly, it's superior to the random one...

 MK> See above but just for fun I will do it side by side just like before.

 MK>   6076e0bd-22d50e70 n3yM8uFm
 MK>   6076e0bd-246302d4 sL4Irxdg
 MK>   6076e0bd-25d0d1f0 8fq4vU7e
 MK>   6076e0bd-276236a4 Aez4QZog
 MK>   6076e0bd-28f6291c jbQiqKYc
 MK>   6076e0bd-2a842704 gElrH3UT
 MK>   6076e0bd-2bf24d98 8qmyLLQR
 MK>   6076e0bd-2d8103dc Pbeaul1Z
 MK>   6076e0bd-2f0436d0 IHsKacHr
 MK>   6076e0bd-30a01b60 0An6jRkx

 MK> My best guesstimation is that the random one is superior given that it
 MK> doesn't require a rewrite of current FTN standards.

It doesn't conform to the standard either...

 MK> However I do plan to change that and then for sure the unixtime based
 MK> one will be superior and unique for all time, nevermind 3 lousy years.

I suggest you don't waist your time on fighting to get the existing standard changed. It's wasted energy.

If you want a better unique identifier in ftn messages, create a new kludge (see my suggestion for the @UUID one, which needs a @RUID btw for replies), so you can do what you want, and make it as good as possible without having to consider existing software. Then write a proposal and convince software developers to implement it in their software.


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815