Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6

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

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-27 for -)
I agree with Russ that this document should have a paragraph explaining
its relationship to RFC 4075 (which is being obsoleted by this
document), describing briefly why RFC 4075 is obsoleted (and what is
added here), and saying that the use of RFC 4075 is no longer

Glen Zorn's SecDir review also identified a number of places that
would benefit from some clarification of the text, and provided
editorial comments that should be taken into account.

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-25)
  As pointed out in the Gen-ART Review by Sean Turner on 2009-08-12:

  In section 4: s/To to enable/To enable/

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

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

Comment (2009-08-26)
In addition to identifying items (2a) and (3) above, Glen Zorn's (late) secdir review dated
August 24 provides some suggested wording changes.  I would encourage the authors 
to review Glen's suggestions and incorporate those that they find helpful.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-27 for -)
I support the DISCUSSes by Russ and Adrian concerning the relationship with RFC 4705.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection