This is an early review for the RTG-DIR. Status: Document is basically sounds and with both configuration and monitoring features for the WSDON and Flexi networks Some editions would help the yang module readability: 1. Comments on draft that contains imported modules (ietf-te, ietf-layer0-types, ietf-yang-types) 2. The references have problems since: a. the above dependent modules are not mentioned b. The yang tree description model (RFC8340) is not mentioned 3. One augment seems odd in the yang diagram: augment /te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:primary-paths /te:primary-path/te:explicit-route-objects /te:route-object-exclude-always/te:type /te:numbered-node-hop/te:numbered-node-hop: It would seem natural to have …./te:numbered-node-hops:/te-numbered-node-hop. Rather than /te:numbered-node-hop/te:numbered-node-hop: I am having trouble tracking this down in the yang module. Andy Bierman has reviewed this model, so perhaps it is ok. It just seems odd. 5) The (multi) structures under grid-type for super-channels A second set of structures that are not easy to check are the (multi) structure below. My reading of the RFC8340 would indicate that (multi) – is the result of a choice (single or super channel) where the super-channel has a list of types:dwdm-n. ( RFC88340 * for a leaf-list or list). The data structure is reasonable. However, I’ve not seen a list of configured identity types in yang before. I am assuming that Andy Bierman (Yang Doctor) looked at this issue. +--rw (grid-type)? +--:(fixed-dwdm) | +--rw (fixed-single-or-super-channel)? | +--:(single) | | +--rw dwdm-n? l0-types:dwdm-n | +--:(multi) | +--rw subcarrier-dwdm-n* l0-types:dwdm-n Is it appropriate to a list of types? Give time allows, I will send in a second review to the RTG-DIR chairs after a deep dive into the model. I suspect that a deep dive has been done by Andy Bierman.