[pim] Re: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16 telechat Secdir review

Hi Wes

Thanks for your review and kind words.

Inline

Regards
Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 1:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16 telechat Secdir review


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.



Document: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping
Title: Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping
Reviewer: Wes Hardaker
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to rev iew all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily  for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs  should tr eat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Version reviewed: -16
State: Ready

Congratulations on a very well written document.  Honestly one of the cleanest documents I've ever reviewed.

I only had one question, and it's a question not even an issue: Why is there both a address family and an address length in the packet, if the address length is prescribed by the family (including in the text)?  I assume this is just safe planning for future IP versions???

HB> this is to keep it in par with RFC 6425

Cheers,
Wes


_______________________________________________
pim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]