Host Identity Protocol Certificates
RFC 8002

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Terry Manderson) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2016-07-05 for -08)
No email
send info
I agree with Alexey's discuss comment that the IANA considerations from the obsoleted RFC need to be pulled forward to this one. In my opinion, if the RFC is obsoleted, one should no longer need to read it.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2016-07-06)
No email
send info
Personal preference: I like it when there is a table of content, as it allows me to quickly find a section such as "Differences from RFC 6253". 
And regarding this specific section, you have a nice disclaimer just to one "simple" change :-) I thought it was a template for a HIP bis document, but actually not (checked 5203, 5204, 5205).

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-07-02)
No email
send info
Subject DN doesn't necessarily identify a single certificate. But I am not sure whether this is a problem for HIP.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2016-07-04 for -08)
No email
send info
Why is MAY used int he error handling and not MUST or listing these actions as RECOMMENDED?

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06366.html

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) (was No Objection) No Record

Comment (2016-07-06)
No email
send info
Quin Wu performed the opsdir reivew