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

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

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 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.)

Comments:

- Section 2: Neither hard nor soft failures are used in the document. Can we just remove 
these terms altogether?
- Section 3: Perhaps it's worth mentioning that we consider the standard Dolev-Yao 
style attacker as outlined in RFC3552?
- 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.  

Nits:
    
- Abstract: "implications" seems like the wrong word. Perhaps "properties" can be
used instead? (That is, identifiers can affect security and privacy properties, not
affect *implications*. This is what's used in Section 1, too.)
- Section 1: s/the poor selection of the aforementioned/poor selection of numeric
- Section 1: The sentence, "While it is generally possible... is non-trivial" seems like
it can come at the *end* of the introduction, or removed altogether as it's redundant
with a later sentence in the same section.
- Section 1 (and elsewhere): and/or is not a word -- please use or.
- Section 1: it might help to clarify what is an "inappropriate" algorithm.
- Section 1: s/The analysis of such timelines indicate that/This analysis indicates that
- Section 4: s/The above mas been/The above has been
- Section 4: s/specification misses a/specification omits
- Section 4: s/This has resulted in virtually all/This resulted in many
- Section 4: In the December 2014 entry, it would be good to reference 
I-D.gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id specifically rather than say "the aforementioned
IETF Internet Draft".
- Section 5: s/leads to negative security and privacy implications/harms security 
and privacy properties (Let's make this change through the document, please!)
- Section 6: s/replacement of such flawed scheme/replacement of this flawed scheme
- Section 6: s/wg item of the 6man wg/WG item of the 6man WG (capitalize WG here and elsewhere)
- Section 7: s/The NTP [RFC5905] is employed to avoid/NTP [RFC5905] avoids
- Section 8: s/The proposal experiments/The proposal experiences
- Section 10: s/This document analyzes the timeline of the specification of different types of "numeric identifiers" used in IETF protocols/This document analyzes the timeline of IETF protocol "numeric identifiers"