I am the OPD-DIR reviewer assigned to this draft. (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-07.txt).

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.

The draft is a Standards Track RFC defining DORMS (Discovery Of Restconf Metadata for source-specific multicast), a method to discover and retrieve extensible metadata about source-specific multicast channels using RESTCONF.  The draft defines the new "dorms" service name for use with the SRV DNS Resource Record (RR) type and a new YANG module with support for extensions. 

The draft adds one YANG module to the "YANG Module Names"registry maintained at https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters, a registration to the "ns" subregistry of the "IETF XML Registry" defined in [RFC3688], referencing this draft and one service name to the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" maintained at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.

The draft is well written and I especially appreciate the Security, Privacy and Operations considerations sections. 

A couple of minor nits:

When running the document through the idnits the following need some attention:

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6991' is defined on line 1032, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 699...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8294' is defined on line 1048, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC8294]  Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger, "C...'

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3376
     (Obsoleted by RFC 9776)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3810
     (Obsoleted by RFC 9777)

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).


Many thanks,
Nabeel