Definitions of Managed Objects for Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4)
RFC 5907

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-07 for -)
Supporting Dan's discuss

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-10-24)
Thanks, looks like you took care of all my Comments.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-06)
Support Discuss from several other ADs.

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

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

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-02-11 for -)
1. Most DisplayString objects have been changed into Utf8String objects, but there are still a few objects where they use DisplayString.I understand that in these cases there will (most probably) never be international text, so we can live with this. On the other hand, I do not see what the problem would be to also make those utf8 based. If the content is ASCII, then basically that is exactly the same, no matter if it is repreented in UTF8 or ASCII.
2. Now that they use Utf8String (from RFC 2287), I think that RFC2287 should be added as a normative reference.

3. It would be nice to acknowledge the contribution of the MIB Doctor Bert Wijnen.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-07 for -)
Support Adrian's and Dan's discusses

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection