[Ballot discuss]
The draft says

  Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all
  parts of an Independent Stream document, including any code.
  Therefore, no separate licensing procedure is required for extracting
  and adapting code that is contained in an Independent Stream document
  submitted under the (preferred) unlimited derivative works terms.

If this is a request to the Trustees, then it is inappropriate to publish at an RFC as it will be confused by people as what the rules are instead of what rules were requested. If it is statement of the rules, then I wonder if it would be better in the IAB stream.

[Ballot discuss]
I may have been watching this insufficiently, but...

Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. Is this I-D/RFC the most efficient way to make those requests? Will the Trust even notice that we have made the request? How do we expect the Trust's public statements and commitments to be recorded?

Hopefully, this can be addressed simply by you telling me what the current state of affairs is.

---

Section 7 (the IANA section) also includes...

  This document does make specific request of the IASA, as described in
  preceding sections.

Firstly, does this actually refer to section 5 rather than section 6? I can't see any specific requests for aciton in seciton 6 although there is an implicit request for the IPR collation service to apply (be extended?) to the Independent Stream.

Second, I'm not sure that "hiding" this note about IASA in the IANA section is the best idea.

I think this can be addressed by some simple edits.

[Ballot comment]
I would not have been sorry to see this document go to IETF last call. Although absolutely not necessary (on a number of counts) it seems to me that it is a piece of process where we would benefit from being able to claim IETF consensus.

[Ballot discuss]
I may have been watching this insufficiently, but...

Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. I this I-D/RFC the most efficient way to make those requests? Will the Trust even notice that we have made the request? How do we expect the Trust's public statements and commitments to be recorded?

Hopefully, this can be addressed simply by you telling me what the current state of affairs is.

---

Section 7 (the IANA section) also includes...

  This document does make specific request of the IASA, as described in
  preceding sections.

Firstly, does this actually refer to section 5 rather than section 6? I can't see any specific requests for aciton in seciton 6 although there is an implicit request for the IPR collation service to apply (be extended?) to the Independent Stream.

Second, I'm not sure that "hiding" this note about IASA in the IANA section is the best idea.

I think this can be addressed by some simple edits.

[Ballot comment]
Throughout the document, ISE is expanded as "Independent Stream Editor."
  However, RFC 5620 uses  Independent Submission Editor.  Please use the
  term from RFC 5620.

  The Abstract says:

    This document specifies the procedures by which authors of RFC
    Independent Stream documents grant the community "incoming" rights
    for copying and using the text.  It also specifies the "outgoing"
    rights the community grants to readers and users of those documents,
    and it requests that the IETF Trust manage the outgoing rights to
    effect this result.

  s/effect/affect/

  Section 2 says:

    Section 8 of RFC 4846 presented the copyright rules for the
    Independent Submission stream.  The present document is intended to
    be fully consistent with that section, and to update it by clarifying
    the Trust-based formal procedures to effect those rules.

  The last sentence should be reworded to ensure that "Trust" is
  interpreted as the IETF Trust.

  Documents that become April 1st RFCs are not posted an I-Ds.  Should this
  document say anything about them?

[Ballot comment]
Section 4., paragraph 1:
>    Independent Stream authors will submit their material as Internet-
>    Drafts.  These drafts will be submitted to, and stored in, the IETF
>    Internet-Drafts repository in the same fashion as IETF Internet-
>    Drafts.

  Minor comment: FWIW, April 1 RFCs are explicitly excluded from the
  requirement to be submitted as IDs first on
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. How is rights transfer handled
  for them?