Re: [Pearg] Review of draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-01

Fernando Gont <> Mon, 30 March 2020 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01663A110B for <>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HOKyAd6vTRz5 for <>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449B43A09F4 for <>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D250A82820; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:49:16 +0200 (CEST)
To: Christopher Wood <>,
References: <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:49:03 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Review of draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 00:49:27 -0000

Hello, Chris,

Thanks a lot for your feedback! In-line!

On 28/3/20 21:44, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Document: draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-01 []
> Assessment: Almost ready
> Thanks for putting this information together! I think the analysis and timeline are
> a testament to the importance and subtleties of numeric identifier generation.
> The amount of detail is quite comprehensive. Even if there are glaring omissions,
> I think the overall point is made clear.

I'm curious about the omissions... which ones? If only for the sake of 
curiousity. :-)  (FWIW, for the most part we documented numeric IDs from 
different layers that we were closely involved in... not that there are 
not other, though!)

> I only have some high level comments on the document, along with several nits.
> (If it'd be easier, and if you have the repository on GitHub, I can submit a PR
> for the nits.)

Here it is:  . The working copy of 
the I-Ds are the ones with the "-latest" suffix.

> Comments:
> - Section 2: Neither hard nor soft failures are used in the document. Can we just remove
> these terms altogether?

Definitely yes. Done!

> - Section 3: Perhaps it's worth mentioning that we consider the standard Dolev-Yao
> style attacker as outlined in RFC3552?

Does RFC3552 actually mention it?

> - Section 5, second paragraph: It looks the start of this sentence (or paragraph)
> was accidentally deleted:
>     he interoperability requirements for TCP ISNs are probably not
>     clearly spelled out as one would expect.

s/he/The/ -- done, thanks!

> Nits:

I have not applied these yet. If you want, you can send pull requests. 
Otherwise I will incorporate these comments tomorrow.

Thanks a lot!

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492