One pitch for using a separate "host" for mastering...or for using WaveLab anyway...
 
I think it was version 7 that added a function let you audition your plug-in chain with the output loudness normalized to match the unprocessed audio.  I forget what the name of the stupid function is (and I can't open up the app and check right now because I don't have the &@#^ dongle with me)...but it is great for evaluating whether you really improved things or not.  This insulates you from the "all other things being equal...louder sounds better" scenario.
 
I can't imagine that other mastering hosts don't have this function by now...but I don't know of a plugin that'll do this for you and SONAR as a host doesn't have this.

Wavelab is my Mastering program. There's many great things Sonar can do, but Mastering isn't really one of them. I mean that in a sense of Professional Mastering, not demo-ing. Sonar just doesn't have the extensive metering, marking, montaging, indexing and export capabilities that Wavelab does. However, if you've ever tried mixing a project in Wavelab, you'll quickly see how far superior Sonar is to that! Believe me, I've done it.
 
Sonar is great at testing an output, for example. Let's say you opt to send your mix to someone else to Master. You can easily make some mixing decisions for the type of Master you want by plugging in some VSTs into the Master buss. From there, you can at least get a preemptive estimate as to how poorly your mix will translate at a higher volume with brickwall limiting or how to work at keeping some dynamic material. At least you can whip out a quick demo for your client.

Here's a report from my first experience with a real project under Ozone.  It was a live show and the objective was to have a good enough recording to use for demos, but mainly for the musicians to study to improve the overall presentation.  So it was not high risk and I didn't expect anything like studio quality.  I had recorded this band in this room several times so I got a decent mic placement -- 8 tracks total for a 16-piece band.
 
Always before, I did everything in one pass.  This time I consciously avoided any "mastering" effects during the mixing process.  I did noise removal (with RX4) before importing tracks into SONAR.  I did track-level EQ where it made sense.  I put the instruments on a sub-mix and used the vocal track to duck the band slightly.  I did a little reverb on the vocal and  instruments with tight mics or direct boxes so they matched the natural reverb of the room.  I only compressed the tracks that were obnoxiously punchy (kick drum, vocal, and bass).  I set the pan of course and mixed the levels.  I didn't use any effects on the master bus except for a limiter, and it shouldn't have hit very much.
 
I created stereo mixes for each of the tracks, then ran them into the stand-alone Ozone.  Actually I started with just a couple of tracks to see how I'd like that.  I found several Ozone presets that definitely improved the sound, and I studied them a little to see what they had in common.  To that I added a little bit of stereo processing in Ozone.  I used Insight to guide me to uniform levels.  I found that there were some things I really needed to improve at the individual track level, so I saved a template of my Ozone effects and went back into SONAR.  The trumpets had not been coming through the final mix as clearly as I wanted, so in Sonar, I added the Ozone dynamic EQ to the original track that had the mic covering the brass area.  That allowed me to get a little more presence from the trumpets without really changing the character of the sound.  That was pretty neat.
 
After that, I worked entirely in Ozone.  Ozone makes it easy to work on a whole collection of tunes.  In my case I have 23 tunes from that gig.  I found one combination of settings I liked for all the tunes and applied it to everything.  The only adjustment I made per song was the overall loudness.
 
Results?  I think this yielded a better sounding, more uniform product, but it wasn't radically better than what I had previously done entirely within Sonar.  Other than the back-tracking I did to remix after I heard things in Ozone, the work flow was pretty efficient.  It probably took me a half hour longer than I would have spent otherwise, but some of that was learning curve.  There isn't anything I did in Ozone that I could not have done in Sonar, but I think I will continue with this separated workflow because it does help me concentrate on different things at different stages. 
 
Regarding Ozone itself, I don't have a great basis for competitive comparison, but the GUI made a lot of sense to me.  I have no criticism of the product.
 
Here are some examples.  Bear in mind it is 16 cats shoved onto a small stage with no opportunity to mic everything separately.  If I were going to use these tracks more broadly, I'd go back into Sonar and use automation to set the solo levels a little better.
https://files.secureserver.net/0sCHmYymAoCGxG
https://files.secureserver.net/0sXr0icIMZhQKQ
https://files.secureserver.net/0s9R2t72mTcqA5
 
 

I have Sound forge 11 and though its very powerful I have not understood how an audio editor is good for mastering? Sonar on the other hand is ideal if setup for it. 

I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I was one that complained at first until I used Ozone 6. Yes reverb was removed but that was all. I never used reverb in Ozone anyway. 
 
I don't see how Wavelab or Sound forge are a choice for mastering. SF has some good plugins but so does Sonar.

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I haven't seen any complaints about the product itself.  The complaints I have seen result from Izotope's decision to align their various packages to better match the stated purpose.  Some of the things that were in Ozone 5 are really not "mastering" tools per se.  I understand people being unhappy that those bits aren't in the Ozone 6 package, but I think you have to evaluate Ozone 6 on its own merits as a mastering tool.  One of the major additions is the stand-alone mode.  To me, that makes a lot of sense, as the GUI is well organized for the job of mastering.

John
I have Sound forge 11 and though its very powerful I have not understood how an audio editor is good for mastering? Sonar on the other hand is ideal if setup for it. 

I'm sure you know it's a throwback to the days when mastering engineers had better monitors and better processors than recording studios, as well as the knowledge about how to put together a stereo tape that could be made into a vinyl disc. You'd mix your project and hand it over to the mastering guy. They never got their hands on the multitrack -- all they had to work with was your quarter-inch stereo mixdown.
 
That workflow (mix it down first and then master it) has persisted to this day, partly due to tradition and partly because it still makes sense to some (Sound Forge+plugins sitting in for the old ATR-100+a rack of gear), but with modern DAWs it's not really necessary.
 
Sonar is capable of mixing and mastering. And if you work that way, you have the added advantage of being able to tweak the mix while mastering, which you can't do with the two-step process.

I use the same stereo track technique in Sonar. I even have a project setup for mastering. I import the wave file into it to master.   

Excellent post cparmerlee, Great insight into a live session and how you applied a new process. 
I would have liked to listen but I see you chose a download , please post to soundcloud or somewhere , downloads are spooky, I have no idea how big the files are and I'm on pay as you go bandwidth here. 
 
A few posts back I think someone put it perfectly. If you are proficient and comfortable with software like Sound Forge or Wave Lab your workflow is improved by that process. If not you might be better off using what you know already.  Someone who has been using Sonar forever and knows it inside out,, then tries working with a huge complicated program for the first time will open it ,, look at 1% of it's features and go and run and hide. 
 
Software is all about the user interface and how easy any given task can be performed. It's not about what plug ins are included at all. Plug ins can be shared between apps and purchased. 
 
I still use Wave lab because it was the first Audio application I learned way back in 2002. It's user interface is super straight forward and seems everything works as you would expect it to work. I tried Cakewalk Guitar studio at the same time and found it missing many audio editing tools. I also found, and still find it's user interface ridiculously overly complicated.   The other factor was Wave Lab worked flawlessly with my Creative Sound card but of course Sonar didn't.  Wave Lab is software I understand and have used daily for 12 years. So obviously I can work faster and get better results. But I'll accredit that to it's interface more than any other reason. 
 
I have since tried all the Wave editors and Wave lab has less levels of mouse clicks to run tools.. That seems nit picky but we are talking workflow and it's frustrating to have to wade through menus and keyboard shortcuts just to do a simple edit like level or EQ. My other favorite is Gold Wave for Batch conversion. Wave Lab now requires an encoder licence like Sonar. 
 
So to answer the OP. I bet if you take the time to learn how to use Ozone or any other dedicated software for mastering, you will elevate your skills and workflow. This will take time. No powerful software can be used without a steep learning curve.  But if you are familiar with using Sonar to master, then you might be better off focusing on that instead. But you'll need a few add on's to make that work. Ozone is one of the better ones it would seem.