I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of IETF drafts.  

This document presents an update for configuration traceability using NETCONF. The draft is written in the context of autonomous networks and describes some use cases of how a YANG model can help to avoid potential conflicts in the network configuration.

1. Suggestion for a Clearer Abstract:
You could add a sentence like this toward the end of the abstract:

'This mechanism is intended to be used in conjunction with an external monitoring or assurance system (such as described in RFC 9417), which is responsible for detecting anomalies, including intent violations or similar scenarios.'

This clarification would:

Align the abstract with the body of the document (especially where RFC 9417 is explicitly referenced).
Prevent readers from misunderstanding the scope of the mechanism.
Strengthen the positioning of the draft in an autonomous networking architecture (where components have distinct roles).

2. Align terminology:

Figures show a 3-layer architecture including orchestrator, controller, and NEs. But, across the document, you refer to the NMS as responsible for the configuration of the NEs. Are NMS and Controller interchangeable terms?

3. Examples in the Use cases:

The use cases are very descriptive, but can you include some examples of how can the YANG model be used by the anomaly detection system for conflict resolution?

Nits:

Across the document, two consecutive spaces were replaced with a single space (e.g., after full stops, commas, and between words).
Line 10:  r/its originating NMS/their originating NMS
Line 16:  r/facilitates the troubleshooting/facilitates troubleshooting
Line 18:  r/closed loop/closed-loop
Line 178: r/DataStore/datastore