Early Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-24
review-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-24-opsdir-early-fioccola-2025-05-02-00

This document provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of YANG module
documents. It obsoletes RFC 8407 and also updates RFC 8126. I think that it is
clear and well-written.

However, I have few suggestions:

- I would include in section 1 more information about the motivations behind
the changes proposed in the document. Some are due to errors, others are
consequential to the YANG implementation experience, and so on. Maybe the long
list of section 1.1 can be split into categories. It is just to provide
additional context for readers.

- In section 2.4, the meaning of the uppercase usage of the key words could be
further explained. Since this document provides guidelines for YANG Data
Models, I think that a sentence to clarify the implications of the normative
terminology would help in this case. For example, if the normative terminology
is needed to establish the level of compliance of every IETF YANG Data Models
with these guidelines, it is good to highlight this point in section 2.

- I would point out in section 3.5.1 that, in addition to service, network and
device models, other types of YANG modules are possible and have been defined
covering layering relationships, e.g. between underlay networks and overlay
services.

- I'm wondering whether it can be useful in section 4 to provide some
recommendations about the typical structure and ordering while writing a YANG
data model.