google
docs: upd links to rfc9562
RFC 9562 obsoletes RFC 4122. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9562#name-update-motivation
alos, could someone update the description of the github repo to include new rfc number?
@bradleypeabody: is it the right thing to do? Also, number of other places also link to the draft: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peabody-dispatch-new-uuid-format+-path:vendor+count:all&patternType=keyword&sm=0
And not sure if all other references to 4122 should be updated in this repo https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+4122+repo:%5Egithub%5C.com/google/uuid%24+&patternType=keyword&sm=0
The constant RFC4122 cannot be changed though a new constant could be defined to be equal with it. Probably Standard = RFC4122 (or the other way around). Not sure it is worth it. There probably should be a note in the documentation that 9562 obsoletes 4122 so it makes sense why RFC4122 is the name of the standard variant.
I don't think the code comments need updating nor do the tests. For backwards compatibility I believe Variant.String will still need to return the string "RFC4122".
My suggestion would be along the lines of what @bormanp is saying - add another constant either Standard (or maybe just RFC) and/or RFC9562 with the same value as RFC4122 (i.e. probably just adding a separate const RFC = RFC4122 could be enough). And I would imagine that having Variant.String() return "RFC4122" is not really a deal breaker and that can be just left as-is until/unless there's a need to change it.
@bormanp @bradleypeabody thank you for your comments. I added a new constant with the comment and had to change a couple of places in the comment to make it more consistent. If you have suggestions how to improve wording, feel free to push to this branch(or use the code suggestion feature in the github review UI), so we can merge it and move on with our lives)
@bormanp thank you for approving! Do you know who has the merge rights?