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

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Just noting that in Sections 4 and 9, ALTO is not the only protocol to use the RFC 4848 mechanism for server discovery -- discovery of a local location information server (RFC 5986) was previously specified this way and was, I believe, the inspiration for the ALTO mechanism.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Thanks for making changes to how draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is used/referenced in the document, and I'm convinced that it is now an informational reference only.  I suggest one change to make it clear that the relevant terminology is adequately explained here, and that the stateful-pce draft is only for additional information:

OLD
   Readers are assumed to be thoroughly familiar with terminology
   defined in [RFC4655], [RFC4726], [RFC5440], [RFC5623], [RFC6805],
   and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

NEW
   Readers are assumed to be thoroughly familiar with terminology
   defined in [RFC4655], [RFC4726], [RFC5440], [RFC5623], and
   [RFC6805].  More information about terms related to stateful PCE
   can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

(Kathleen Moriarty) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Thanks for updating the security considerations and including references to other documents that discuss the considerations.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

good document!

(Adrian Farrel) Recuse