Re: [Pearg] Brian Trammell's Yes on draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-09: (with COMMENT)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian!

Thanks a lot for your comments! In-line...

On 16/6/22 11:13, Brian Trammell via Datatracker wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This document is ready for publication on the IRTF stream.
> 
> Two questions, though (my Yes here does not depend on the answers):
> 
> (1) I notice that most of the chronologies seem to shift from academic
> citations to I-Ds and don't shift back; did academia lose interest in these
> issues at that time, or did the literature search only cover the time before
> the discussion moved to various IETF working groups?

I can't really speak for the academia. But I'd say that it depends on 
the specific numeric ID. For example, I don't remember much on TCP ISNs 
after the work of Zalweski. OTOH, there has been recent work on IP Frag 
IDs such as:

    [IPID-DEV] Klein, A. and B. Pinkas, "From IP ID to Device ID and
               KASLR Bypass (Extended Version)", June 2019,
               <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.10478.pdf>.


I don't think the topic of transient numeric IDs has been analized in a 
general way as we have done in this series of documents. And, on ther 
other hand, except for special cases such as Klein and Pinkas' work, 
flaws in specific implementations were probably seen as very 
implementation specific ("X version of Y implementation") to be subject 
of e.g. journal papers.



> (2) The document has a significant number of informative references to
> abandoned I-Ds. Were these submitted for adoption by the associated WGs (i.e.,
> it'd be interesting to know if the WG process failed to address mitigations for
> these identification issues), or merely intended as points of discussion?

We tried to make this clear in the timelines. However, if there's any of 
these documents for which their fate is not clear (e.g. whether they 
were abandoned or adopted by the wg), please do let us know. -- I will 
nevertheless go through the list myself and see if I can catch any for 
which a clarification is warranted.

I realize that for some I-Ds, the metadata could be adjusted. e.g. 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-04.txt 
was, for the most part, replaced by the I-D that became RFCRFC8981, and 
as such I could request that it's metadata be adjusted.

Although I'm not sure what's the policy here -- e.g., it's clear that 
when a draft-author is adopted by a wg and becomes draft-ietf, the 
draft-ietf document "replaces" the draft-author one. However, in cases 
where a draft-ietf document is kind of based in a draft-author, but not 
fully, I'm not sure if one should mark such draft-author as replaced 
with the "draft-ietf" one. (i.e., this is me asking for input).

Thanks!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492