Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

I requested new text on privacy and gave a suggestion which only mentioned
the risks; the added text in the revision is substantive and specific, an excellent 
response!

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

- document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-15.txt
  page 5:   it can be prefixed by a backslash...
  on that line (at the end of line): s/0005C/005c/

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

ldapbis-models-13 addresses the relationship to X.501 in a reasonable manner. DISCUSS cleared.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

  Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2253." to the end of the
  Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn.

  Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2254." to the end of the
  Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter.  Also, the reference should
  be removed from the Abstract.  The last sentence might read:
  >
  > This document defines a human-readable string representation of
  > LDAP search filters that is appropriate for use in LDAP URLs and
  > other applications.
  >
  This wording avoids the need to wait for [LDAPURL] to be assigned
  an RFC number.

  Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2252, and 
  RFC 2256." to the end of the Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-models.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) No Objection