I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-?? Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2017-05-09 IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-14 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with Minor Issues/Nits To an outsider like me, this seems like a useful document and it was an interesting read. The document could use a serious edit for grammar and typos. A few specific comments below. Major issues: None. Minor issues: In section 2.1, paragraphs 4 and 5 mention "speed". The speed of what? Development of the module? It's not clear from the text. In section 3.1, it says: While there is no formal definition of what construes an SDO, a common feature is that they publish specifications along specific processes with content that reflects some sort of membership consensus. The specifications are developed for wide use among the membership or for audiences beyond that. First of all, s/construes/constitutes. But aside from that, it's not at all clear to me that a common feature is "membership consensus". For example, we don't have membership, and many other organizations use voting and not consensus. Perhaps replace the above with something simpler like: Most SDOs create specifications according to a formal process in order to produce a standard that is useful for their constituencies. Nits/editorial comments: In the Abstract and section 3.1, you use "standards-defining organization" for SDO. I've never heard that phrase used before. Elsewhere in the document, you use "standards development organization", which is the phrase I've always seen used. I suggest you change to that in both places. Throughout the document, you say things like, "the authors believe" or "we assume". This is a WG consensus document. While I generally think that using these terms is bad form in a WG document, saying "the authors believe" almost sounds like the authors believe it, but the WG might not. If the authors and the WG believe XYZ, don't say "the authors believe XYZ" or "we believe XYZ"; just say "XYZ", or at least use the passive voice. So: Section 1: OLD The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify human communication around YANG modules. The authors acknowledge that the classification boundaries are at times blurry, but believe that this document should provide a robust starting point as the YANG community gains further experience with designing and deploying modules. To be more explicit, the authors believe that the classification criteria will change over time. NEW The intent of this document is to provide a taxonomy to simplify human communication around YANG modules. While the classification boundaries are at times blurry, this document should provide a robust starting point as the YANG community gains further experience with designing and deploying modules. To be more explicit, it is expected that the classification criteria will change over time. END Section 2: OLD For the purpose of this document we assume that both approaches (bottom-up and top-down) will be used as they both provide benefits that appeal to different groups. NEW This document considers both bottom-up and top-down approaches as they are both used and they each provide benefits that appeal to different groups. END Section 2.1: OLD For the purpose of this document we will use the term "orchestrator" to describe a system implementing such a process. NEW For the purpose of this document, the term "orchestrator" is used to describe a system implementing such a process. Section 2.2: OLD Although the [RFC7950], [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship of the terms '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', the authors understand there is a 1:1 relationship between a data model and a YANG module, but a data model may also be expressed using a collection of YANG modules (and submodules). (This one's not even grammatical. Here's my best guess as to what you meant) NEW Although [RFC7950] doesn't explain the relationship between the terms '(YANG) data model' and '(YANG) module', there is a 1:1 relationship between a data model and a YANG module. However, a data model may also be expressed using a collection of YANG modules (and submodules). That's it for all of the "author" and "we" items. One other nit: 3.2 s/augmented into/added into. I don't think you can "augment into" something.