Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

Section 1.5., paragraph 8:
>    These suggestions are not entirely consistent with all practices that
>    are currently followed by certification authorities, client
>    developers, and service providers.  However, they reflect the best
>    aspects of current practices and are expected to become more widely
>    adopted in the coming years.

  This seems to argue that the doc should be a BCP and not a PS?


Section 1.8., paragraph 28:
>       Transport Layer Security [TLS] negotiation; in this specfication

  Nit: s/specfication/specification/


Appendix A., paragraph 1:
>    recommendations in this specfication: email [EMAIL-SRV] and XMPP

  Nit: s/specfication:/specification:/


Section 7.2., paragraph 1:
>          Implemenations MUST NOT match any form of wildcard, such as a

  Nit: s/Implemenations/Implementations/

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

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

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

I am ballotting "no objection" based on only a partial review, and trust of the ADs who are authors, ballotted "yes", and raised Discusses.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Recuse