Renaming Extended Sequence Number (ESN) Transform Type in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-rename-esn-05

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[RFCXXXX].

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [IKEV2-IANA]. If so, the IESG
needs to approve it.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "he"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 3, paragraph 3
+ NIT:

Section 3, paragraph 3
>    *  By "sequence numbers" here we assume logical entities (like
>       counters) that can be used for replay protection on receiving
>       sides.  In particular, these entities are not necessary the
>       content of the Sequence Number field in the IPsec packets, but may
>       be constructed using some information, that is not necessary
>       transmitted.


s/that is not necessary transmitted/that is not necessarily transmitted/

Document references draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-19, but -20 is the latest
available revision.

Paragraph 2
> kev2-rename-esn-03 Abstract This documents clarifies and extends the meaning 
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Consider using the singular form after the singular determiner "This".

Section 1, paragraph 1
> ate packets. Both AH and ESP allow to use either a 32-bit counter or a 64-bit
>                                    ^^^^^^
Did you mean "using"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

Section 1, paragraph 3
> ction is enabled on receiving side. Thus the sender should always send the in
>                                     ^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

Section 3, paragraph 7
> on whether these properties allow to achieve replay protection. Some existing
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
Did you mean "achieving"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

Thanks to Rich Salz for the ARTART review.

Thanks to Rich Salz for the ARTART review.