Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Yes

Agree with the comments about toning down the language in the first paragraph.

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

intro: "gold standard" is being a bit too keen IMO, I'd say
toning the language down a bit would be better.

intro: 3DES may be the "only other widely supported" cipher
for IPsec, but that's not true more generally.

section 2 says: "As the ChaCha20 block function is not applied
directly to the plaintext, no padding should be necessary."
That "should" could be confusing as written if a reader thinks
it means their code doesn't have to do padding. It might be
better to e.g. say something like "In theory no padding is
needed for this cipher, however, in keeping with..." 

section 3: Is "SHOULD inlude no padding" really right?  I'd
have thought a MAY was better there.  "MUST accept any length"
is also a bit odd - what if I (try:-) add loads of padding?

Appendices: thanks for those - I assume someone checked them
for you? (I didn't:-)

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

This is easier than usual to read for this sort of draft :-) 

-- Section 1, 1st paragraph:
I concur with Stephen's comment. Furthermore, this entire paragraph pretty much reads like advertising copy. Can it be toned down a bit?

-- 8.1 (Normative References)

The reference to [RFC7539]  is a normative downref. I don't see it on the downref registry, nor was it mentioned in the last call notice. (For the record, I think it's a reasonable downref.)

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Juergen Schoenwaelder's comment's from the opsdir review were applied in version 11.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection