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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01663A110B for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HOKyAd6vTRz5 for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449B43A09F4 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D250A82820; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:49:16 +0200 (CEST)
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, pearg@irtf.org
References: <819285e9-f34e-4815-a046-852c453d23f8@www.fastmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <f43466a1-68c8-b631-a459-872dcedf8175@si6networks.com>
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: <819285e9-f34e-4815-a046-852c453d23f8@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/W_30xk4lFN6zr9RXvMSgvduTvhU>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Review of draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-01
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=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 [https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-01.txt]
> 
> 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: https://github.com/fgont/numeric-ids  . 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!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492