Hi Wes Thanks for your review and kind words. Inline Regards Hooman -----Original Message----- From: Wes Hardaker via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 1:25 PM To: secdir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; pim@xxxxxxxx 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 -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
