Managed Objects for ATM over Packet Switched Networks (PSNs)
RFC 5605

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

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
support Dan's discuss

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-02)
No email
send info
Jeffrey Hutzelman's SecDir review had some suggestions for
clarifications and editorial improvements; they're not blocking, 
but should be considered in AUTH48 (if not earlier).

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-01)
No email
send info
I support Dan's discuss regarding the formatting in the security considerations section.  The text
is much more readable using the usual parentheses instead of the double quotes.

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-02)
No email
send info
The introduction section mentions the PWE3 WG and mail list for further comments. I believe that this is inapropriate, as the future RFC may be longer lived than the WG.

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection