Yes

Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Orie Steele
Paul Wouters

No Objection

Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Mahesh Jethanandani
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Deb Cooley
Yes
Erik Kline
Yes
Orie Steele
Yes
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2024-09-20) Sent 
Thanks for the discussion and the changes. I have updated my ballot to Yes
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment (2024-09-01 for -02) Sent 
I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the comments.

Section 1.4, paragraph 4
>    Provide more detail in Section 4 regarding allowed values in the
>    X.509 certificate key usage extension for an HSS/LMS public key.

Is this a TODO for the author?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

These URLs in the document did not return content:

 * http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf

Section 1, paragraph 1
> ystem to efficiently scale for a larger numbers of signatures. The HSS/LMS al
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The plural noun "numbers" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean "a
larger number" or "larger numbers"?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-09-03 for -02) Not sent 
Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-30 for -02) Sent 
Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-)

The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says that this I-D "updates" RFC 8708 while it actually obsoletes it. Also, I am unsure whether this I-D is fixing an erratum (Q1 of the template) or at least the erratum reference would be welcome.

## Section 1.3

I find weird to have a 2013 reference in the same sentence as "recent advances", see `Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013]` ;-)

## Section 1.4

Is there some hand waving in this section with terms like `there are plans` and `yet-to-be-published` ? I am not very familiar in the PKIX/CMS parts of the Internet, so this may well be clear for more knowledgeable people.