Host Identity Protocol Certificates
draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-09

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Subject DN doesn't necessarily identify a single certificate. But I am not sure whether this is a problem for HIP.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

I agree with Alexey's discuss comment that the IANA considerations from the obsoleted RFC need to be pulled forward to this one. In my opinion, if the RFC is obsoleted, one should no longer need to read it.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

Personal preference: I like it when there is a table of content, as it allows me to quickly find a section such as "Differences from RFC 6253". 
And regarding this specific section, you have a nice disclaimer just to one "simple" change :-) I thought it was a template for a HIP bis document, but actually not (checked 5203, 5204, 5205).

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

Why is MAY used int he error handling and not MUST or listing these actions as RECOMMENDED?

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06366.html

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) (was No Objection) No Record

Quin Wu performed the opsdir reivew