Thanks for addressing my previous review comments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ogRyxz5jwOgHqYu2XsU4v0n66FE/

Issues

In section 3.2, ietf-dorms@2025-07-06.yang doesn’t match revision 2021-07-08. Also Copyright should be 2025 (not 2019).

I think leaf source-address should be of type ip-address-no-zone?

Please address this error reported on data tracker:
ietf-dorms@2021-07-08.yang:82: error: keyword "must" not in canonical order (see RFC 7950, Section 14)


For the security section (4.1), please take a look at the new template in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/. For an example document which uses that template, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/

Section 4.1 says NACM MAY be used. I think that should be SHOULD. We discussed that last time and I understand why you want to use MAY. My suggestion is to use SHOULD and explain when NACM is not appropriate. Without justification, security reviewers will flag this.

In the reference section, RFC6020 should be a normative reference. I couldn’t find where this is specified but that’s what I have noticed in other YANG documents.

Comments

Section 4.1 mentions edit-config (which is a NETCONF RPC) but DORMS is RESTCONF-specific. This text comes from the template and is only an example, so this is probably ok.

I would suggest an early review by SECDIR.