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-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-?? Reviewer: Susan Hares Review Date: 2024-02-02 IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-05 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Excellent work that reuses earlier work (TE + network model (I2RS), and CCAMP documents. It has the clear flow I have come to expect from the authors (Scott, Jonas, Min Ye, Xi Li, and Daniela) Thank you for your excellent work. Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: 6 nits #1 - Editorial nit, Appendix A, format issues Appendix A has format issues in pdf in the following variables +rw tet:name? string +ro mwt:mw-bandwidth? unit64 +rw mwt:num-bonded-carriers unit32 +rw mwt:numb-protecting-carriers unit32 You might want to check to see if it fits the switch to the next line. [yang diagrams are tough in line wrap] #2 - Appendix A.1 example - editorial nit, line termination { } + [ ] in seem off, but I cannot judge this by eye. Did you generate this example from a real-world example? If so, you can ignore it. Suggestion: Some people put comments at the end of lines at key points. It makes the example easier to read. [You do not have to adopt suggestions. It is just my experience that it helps the person reading the example). #3 - Same Suggestion of adding line comments for readability for A.2 #4 - Appendix B Please look at the line wrap on the following lines: +rw tet:te-tip-id? +rw te:name string #5 - figures 1 and 2 are very small in pdf, but OK in the txt. #6 - Examples in B.1 Same comments on adding comments if long strings of } ... } ... } ] ...} A short comment on what it ends, really helps.