Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-genart-lc-worley-2023-11-16-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2023-11-16
IETF LC End Date:  2023-11-21
IESG Telechat date:  [not known]

Summary:

    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
    should be fixed before publication.

I recommend the Yang Doctors check the Yang module again.  The last
Yang Doctor check was done on the -04 version, this is the -16
version, and the Yang has changed considerably since then.

Nits/editorial comments:

Different parts of the text disagree on whether (1) this module is
applicable to all layer 1 networks, but is primarily expected to be
used for OTN layer 1 networks, or (2) is applicable to OTN layer
networks.  E.g. the two sentences of the Abstract seem to take
opposite approaches, sec. 4.1 seems to be OTN-specific.  Presumably
the intention is agreed upon; the text needs to be made consistent
with the intention.

   3.  Prefix in Data Node Names

      +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+
      | Prefix      | YANG module               | Reference            |
      +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+
      | l1-types    | ietf-layer1-types         | This Document        |
      +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+
             Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules


   RFC Editor Note: Please replace XXXX with the number assigned to the
   RFC once this draft becomes an RFC.

Should "This Document" be replaced by "RFC XXXX"?

   6.  YANG Code for Layer1 Types

     identity ODU0 {
       base odu-type;
       description
         "ODU0 type (1.24Gb/s).";

For "description" values that are not full sentences, there is
inconsistency whether the value ends with a period or not.  There is
also inconsistency in values that are full sentences.  (Perhaps this
is a matter for the Editor.)

   Appendix A.  Examples of OTN Label Ranges

There are several instances of

                 "//not-present tsg": "",

I suspect they are intended to be

                 "// not-present tsg": "",

[END]