This is the third dnsdir review of this document. Previous reviews, done by a different reviewer, marked it as ready or ready with nits, on the basis that this document doesn't make any changes to how NAPTR is used, and that's the only DNS-related content in the document.

I agree with this assessment. My one issue is that when I tried to actually understand, by reading this document and the two RFCs to which it referred, how the YANG model represents the NAPTR record, I failed. This may be because I'm not smart enough, or lack experience in ALTO and/or YANG (both of which are true). 

However, if the authors intend that I be able to understand from this document what part of the NAPTR record is represented by the data model, it might be worth revisiting whether the model in fact accomplishes this. In particular, NAPTR records contain quite a few fields, e.g. order and preference, and these fields are not mentioned in the YANG data model. No fields at all are, which makes me think that the data model is only representing one field, or perhaps represents the owner name of the NAPTR record and doesn't represent the NAPTR record's content at all.

If the authors intended that this be understood from what is written there, I would encourage them to clarify the text. I'm calling this a nit rather than raising it as an issue because I'm assuming that the problem is on my end—I certainly didn't read the aforementioned RFCs closely. So perhaps someone who understands those RFCs better than I do would not be confused by the text in the data model document.