Great to see this work finally making it to the finish line.

Thank you for the short and concise draft.

Thanks to Barry L., and Joel H. for their reviews.  (Both caught the ABNF notation issues about semver / date.)

I would like to echo Éric's comments about if this draft intends to recommend making two copies of the same YANG module?

>If the YANG module (or submodule) has an associated YANG semantic version (ysv:version), then a file name that use the YANG semantic version MUST be created. In addition, a file with the revision date in the file name MAY be created as well.

That is what that paragraph says unless I'm really mistaken.

I don't know what to make of Section 2.1.  The SemVer will indicate some amount of compatibility, but then everything else is caveat emptor?  How would this file naming standard help when there are multiple competing versions?

The working group absolutely wants IANA to create 2 entries for each YANG module that has a SemVer version attached AND wants IANA to ensure that the contents of the modules are identical?  What does identical mean in this case?  Byte-by-byte equivalence?

Please consider these comments when preparing the next revision of this document:

I think the abstract ought to explain this defines the method, not describes it, e.g.g:
/This document presents YANG module file name convention/This document defines the YANG module file name convention/

I couldn't decide if this ought to be lower case or upper case 'RECOMMENDED', please rephrase to avoid this comment:
/In short, the YANG semantic version file name scheme is recommended/

I don't understand the requirement in section 4 that states:
/It MUST be ensured that the files' contents are identical./

NiTs: 
/withouth/without/
/that use/that uses/
/MAY be created as well/MAY be created./

Best wishes,
Gorry

# IESG review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 6
```
   If a revision has an associated YANG semantic version (ysv:version)
   then a YANG file MUST be created that use the YANG semantic version
   in the file name.  Additionally, a YANG file with the revision-date
   MAY be created.  The name of the files SHOULD be of the form:
```
```
     If the YANG module (or submodule) has an associated YANG semantic
     version (ysv:version), then a file name that use the YANG semantic
     version MUST be created.  In addition, a file with the revision date
     in the file name MAY be created as well.
```
Are these paragraphs duplicative?  They seem to be saying the same thing.

### DOWNREFs

DOWNREF `[I-D.ietf-netmod-iana-yang-guidance]` from this Proposed Standard to
Informational `draft-ietf-netmod-iana-yang-guidance`. (For IESG
discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also
seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 1.2, paragraph 1
```
-    it possible to quickly identify the module revision; compared to
-                                                       - ^ ^^^^^^^ -
+    it possible to quickly identify the module revision without
+                                                        ^^^^ ^
```

#### Section 2, paragraph 5
```
-    as its use will convey compatibility status at a glance withouth the
-                                                                   -
```

### Grammar/style

### Section 1.2, paragraph 1
```
     The motivation for using YANG semantic version instead of revision
     date is that it conveys additional information to the user.  A
```
Lots of extra words here. "Using ... date conveys...."

#### Section 1.2, paragraph 1
```
-    available as early as possible, i.e. in the module file name, makes
-             ---------------------------                        -
```

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 1
```
-    As can be seen above, all valid identifiers for YANG semantic version
-     ----------------------
```

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 3
```
-    One consequence of this is that there might exist two modules derived
+    There might exist two modules derived
```

Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

** Section 2.
  In short, the YANG semantic version file name scheme is RECOMMENDED,	
  as its use will convey compatibility status at a glance without the	
  need to read the module.  If a system or tooling can't handle the	
  YANG module file name convention, it is acceptable to not support or	
  use the convention defined in this document.

If I am the developer of a YANG module who do I know that "a system or tooling can't handle this new file name convention" whereby allowing me to ignore the recommendation?