I have only a few small proofreading comments. I’ve supplied these in the form of an edited copy of the draft. There are only minor editorial suggestions and I’ve made them in place without further comment. The one point that might need a slight amount of explanation is I suggested changing “OTN network” to “OTN” because “network” is redundant with the expansion of “OTN" (consider the example of “ATM machine”). You can use your favorite diff tool to review them; I’ve attached the iddiff output for your convenience if you’d like to use it. I’ve also pasted a traditional diff below in case you want to use it for in-line reply.
I remembered I had one additional comment that I forgot to include in my earlier note. I've observed that reviewers, especially from the SEC area, are keen to see specifics in the Security Considerations section, for example calling out specific leaves or subtrees that might be particularly sensitive and explaining the nature of the sensitivity. Your document doesn’t have such specifics — you cite “a number of data nodes” but don’t name them. While I don’t have specific omissions to point out, or changes to recommend, you might want to consider adding some details of this nature. For examples, you might look to recently-approved (https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/decisions/) YANG documents' SecCons sections.
italobusi
commented
6 months ago
See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/QEtMiPbA9aFq2Z0t4swSUHVs1j8/
See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/9DkAUPWyoaFaYatO4M0Z3FhDO-M/