1 a.
	Ted Faber <faber@isi.edu>
1 b.
	The document has had adequate review
1 c.
	The document has had adequate review
1 d.
	I don't believe that there are outstanding issues regarding the
	acceptability of teh document to the WG or any spoilers to be
	found in advancing it.

1 e.
	WG consensus seems to be solid.  There were 2 WGLCs, one of
	which raised substantive unaddressed issues.  Those issues were
	addressed and the second WGLC completed with those problems
	resolved to the satisfaction of those involved and the WG.

1 f.
	No extreme discontent.  Pekka Savola expresses concerns that he
	said he would raise at an IETF last call at one point, but I
	believe those concerns have been addressed during WGLC.  Pekka's
	concerns centered on the effectiveness of ingress filtering on
	addressing the problems with spoofing.

1 g.
	I've done the check.
	The only issue is that two referenced drafts have had their
	version numbers bumped since this version was handed to us.
	They are:
		draft-ietf-tcpm-syn-flood-01
		draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-06

1 h.
	No normative refs.  Informational RFC.
1 i.
	No substantive IANA section.  Informational RFC.
1 j.
	No such sections.
1 k.
	Attached.