For list item #3 it says "Random data for each new UUIDv7 generated for any remaining space." without the word "optional" and the bit layout diagram says `rand_b`
But when you read the description for `rand_b` it says: "The final 62 bits of pseudo-random data to provide uniqueness as per Section 6.8 and/or an optional counter to guarantee additional monotonicity as per Section 6.2."
If you can guarantee that you custom uuidv7 is globally unique for 10000 values per second or more, I don't see why you can't do what you do and treat your custom data as random outside of your implementation.
I think part of this is my mistake, because I assumed you replaced most of the random data with information, but reading it now, I read that you replaced just the last 16 bits. Also since most people used random data for UUIDv1's remaining 48bits of `node` then your variation is no worse than UUIDv1 (or 6) while also being compatible with v7.
I think I just got too caught up on the the bit layout calling it `random` and misread your information. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for discussing it.
So if we look at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bi...
For list item #3 it says "Random data for each new UUIDv7 generated for any remaining space." without the word "optional" and the bit layout diagram says `rand_b`
But when you read the description for `rand_b` it says: "The final 62 bits of pseudo-random data to provide uniqueness as per Section 6.8 and/or an optional counter to guarantee additional monotonicity as per Section 6.2."
Reading section 6.2 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bi..., it all involves incrementing counters, or other monotonic random data.
If you can guarantee that you custom uuidv7 is globally unique for 10000 values per second or more, I don't see why you can't do what you do and treat your custom data as random outside of your implementation.
I think part of this is my mistake, because I assumed you replaced most of the random data with information, but reading it now, I read that you replaced just the last 16 bits. Also since most people used random data for UUIDv1's remaining 48bits of `node` then your variation is no worse than UUIDv1 (or 6) while also being compatible with v7.
I think I just got too caught up on the the bit layout calling it `random` and misread your information. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for discussing it.