Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG
review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-11
Reviewer: Donald Eastlake
Review Date: 2024-05-08
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment
Circuits and a set of reusable groupings. I am not that deep a YANG
expert but it seems to be in the right direction.

Comments:

I found the writing in this draft to be of good quality and
readability. I previously review version -07 and it looks like the
minor issues I found have been fixed and most, but not all, of the
nits I found have been fixed.

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

The Table of Contents only goes down two levels, to Sections whose
number is of the form n.m. But some sections in Sections 5 are five
levels deep (n.m.o.p.q). The ToC does not need to go all the way to
level 5, but I think it should be extended to at least level 3.

Section 1.1, next to last paragraph: there is no reason to cite that
the various identifiers used are ones intended for examples. Suggest
deleting this paragraph.

Section 2: I suggest adding entries for PE, CE, and NF.

Section 5.2 under 'oper-status': "it is recommended to consider both
administrative and operational service status values in conjunction."
-> "considering administration and operational service status values
together is recommended."

Section 5.2.2.2: "abovementioned" -> "above mentioned"

Section 7: two extra spaces that should be deleted:
   "nacm:default-deny- write"
   key- string

Section A.11.1, first paragraph: "permits to manage connectivity
requirements" -> "permits managing connectivity requirements"

A.11.3, fourth bullet point: "permits to handle compute failures" ->
"permits handling compute failures"

Suggest replacing the two occurrences of "leverages" with "uses".

All references to RFC 5798 should be replaced by references to RFC 9568.

The nits checker finds 56 lines too long but that is probably due to
non-ASCII characters,

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com