Re: [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-10: (with COMMENT)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:07 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-
> regext-org-ext-10: (with COMMENT)
>
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-org-ext-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org-ext/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for addressing my Discuss points!
>
> [Original Comment section preserved below]
>
> Section 1
>
>    In the business model of domain registration, we usually have 3 roles
>    of entities: a registrant, a registrar and a registry.  There may be
>    other roles of entities involved in the domain registration process
>    which are not formally defined, such as resellers, DNS service
>    operators, privacy proxies, etc.
>
> nit: Perhaps I am misreading, but are we not going to formally define
> these entities in the next paragraph (in which case "yet" might be worth
> adding)?

If definitions are needed, it may make sense to cite those described in draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. The Datatracker says it's in the RFC Editor's AUTH48 state, so it should be available as an RFC in a matter of days.

Scott