Generic YANG Data Model for Connection-Oriented Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols
draft-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-07

I am balltoing NoObj, trusting the Responsible AD to do the right thing.

Joe Clarke's OpsDir review (review-ietf-lime-yang-connection-oriented-oam-model-05-opsdir-lc-clarke-2018-02-10) has some important comments which should be addressed. 
Thanks to Joe for the review!

I found some small editorial nits while reviewing this document.

§2.2:

>  Connectivity Verification  - Connectivity Verification are used to
>     verify that a destination is connected.  It are also referred to

"...is used to..."

§3:

>  In this document we define a generic YANG model for connection
>  oriented OAM protocols.  The YANG model defined here is generic in a

Hyphenate "connection-oriented".

>  sense that other technologies can extend it for technology specific
>  needs.

Hyphenate "technology-specific".

>  Figure 1 depicts relationship of different YANG modules.

This sentence seems redundant with the earlier "Figure 1 depicts..." statement.


>          |                    |                  |
>   +-------------------------------------------------------+
>   |                      Uniform API                      |
>   +-------------------------------------------------------+
>
>       Relationship of OAM YANG model to generic (base) YANG model

I presume this is Figure 1. It probably should say so.


In the module:

> typedef ma-name-string {
>   type string;
>   description
>     "Generic administrative name for an
>      Maintenance Association (MA).";
> }

"...for a Maintenance..."

It seems to me that the reference to IEEE802.1ag should be Normative.

"  In this document, we take the CFM [IEEE802.1ag] model and
   extend it to a technology independent framework and define the
   corresponding YANG model accordingly."

One question:
Does this YANG model somehow relate to the lmap YANG model (RFC8194)? I mean at least one could probably also use lmap to configure a traceroute in some intervals…

One editorial comment:
sec 1: This sentence is superfluous as inherently true: „All implementations that follow the YANG framework presented in this
   document MUST implement the generic connection oriented YANG model
   presented here.“