Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09
review-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-11-14-00

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-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-09
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2022-11-14
IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Ready with Nits

This is a well written and clear document that specifies YANG modules for
representing assurance graphs which represent the assurance of a given service
by decomposing it into atomic assurance elements called subservices. It
conforms with the SAIN architecture described in a separate document which is
mandatory reading in order to understand, implement or use the YANG modules.

The document is Ready from a Gen-ART perspective. A few nits should be
considered before publication.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. A number of acronyms need expanding at first occurrence: SAIN, TCAM, ECMP.
May be more.

2. Section 2:

>  The third YANG module, "ietf-service-assurance-interface"
   (Section 5), is another example that augments the "ietf-service-
   assurance" module, by adding support for the interface subservice.

Why is this called 'another example'. If this is an example (of what?), should
not the module in Section 5 be named as such?

3. In section 3.3:

>     type yang:date-and-time;
      description
        "Date and time at which the symptom stopped being detected.
         must after the start-date-time.";

s/must after the start-date-time/must be after the start-date-time/