Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

I find the following text really confusing:

This document
is not a complete revision of [RFC3720]. Instead, this document
is intended as a companion document to [draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-
cons-xx]; this document may also be used as a companion document
to the combination of [RFC3720] and [RFC5048], although both of
those RFCs have been obsolete by [draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons-
xx].

.. and will be mostly redundant the day draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons
is published.

So given that this draft will wait in the RFC editor's queue until 
draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons is an RFC, may I suggest that just say 
that it is a companion to draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-cons, and put the 
text about [RFC3720] and [RFC5048] in the to be deleted 
editor's note?
===========

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

- 4.2: what if something goes wrong in T10 and those
changes don't happen?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

The abstract and the introduction should say what is actually in the document and why this is a companion document (e.g. sections 4-7 are fine. the intro is just ambigious.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection