Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16
review-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16-secdir-telechat-hardaker-2025-08-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-08-19
Requested 2025-07-30
Authors Hooman Bidgoli , Zafar Ali , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Anuj Budhiraja , Daniel Voyer
I-D last updated 2025-10-14 (Latest revision 2025-10-09)
Completed reviews Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Wes Hardaker
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/2qMiafChjSc9MFU_JCuct235Qck
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-08-14
review-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-16-secdir-telechat-hardaker-2025-08-14-00
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???

Cheers,
Wes