Hi, this is my YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-16, I marked the review as “Almost Ready” with a couple of comments and questions below.

(1) For the "ietf-ospf-admin-tags" YANG data model, what is the consideration for the “advertise-prefixes” data node to be defined as a list with only one child key inside it? Will this list node be populated with new parameters in the future? Otherwise I think a simpler definition might be the following:
OLD:
    augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/ospf:ospf/ospf:areas/ospf:area
            /ospf:interfaces/ospf:interface:
      +--rw admin-tags
         +--rw tags* [tag]
            +--rw tag                   uint32
            +--rw advertise-prefixes* [prefix]
               +--rw prefix    inet:ip-prefix

NEW:
    augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
            /rt:control-plane-protocol/ospf:ospf/ospf:areas/ospf:area
            /ospf:interfaces/ospf:interface:
      +--rw admin-tags
         +--rw tags* [tag]
            +--rw tag                   uint32
            +--rw advertise-prefix* inet:ip-prefix

There is nothing wrong to be defined in the current draft (e.g., PYANG won’t complain), but I think it can be hierarchically reduced this way, thoughts?

(2) For the grouping "prefix-admin-tag-sub-tlvs", it is defined and used to augment the OSPF YANG data model and the OSPFv3 Extended LSA YANG data model. There is a list defined inside the grouping definition, with only one child declared as leaf-list. I am wondering why the type and length are not defined inside admin-tag-sub-tlv list? Aren’t they part of the admin tag TLV? 

(3) The reference info inside the “revision” statement for this draft is inconsistent with its real title. It is using “RFC XXXX: YANG Data Model for OSPF Prefix Administrative Tags.”, while it should be “RFC XXXX: Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags”.

(4) There are some list/leaf-list data nodes defined in the YANG data model with their names defined as plural (e.g., tags, advertise-prefixes, admin-tags), but the naming convention is to have the list/leaf-list name singular form. See RFC8407bis (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.html#section-4.3.1) for the following:
“List identifiers SHOULD be singular with the surrounding container name plural. Similarly, "leaf-list" identifiers SHOULD be singular.”

(5) There is a YANG tree diagram included in the draft, an informative reference to RFC 8340 should be added in the draft. See RFC8407bis (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.html#section-3.4) for the following:
“If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document. Refer to Section 2.2 of [RFC8349] for an example of such a reference.”

(6) It would be good if the tree structure of the YANG module could be defined in a separate section/subsection, so that readers are able to navigate to the overview (i.e., tree structure) of the model quickly if they want. Just a suggestion for the authors to consider.

(7) Please include a note to the RFC editor requesting RFC XXXX and xxxx(or even better, use RFC YYYY for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang) is replaced with the RFC number that is assigned to the document. 

(8) I see a couple of “TBD” throughout the draft, did the authors leave them intentional?

(9) I think it would be useful if some example instance snippets of this YANG data model can be added, either throughout the document or in an appendix. Is this something the authors would consider to help understand the use of YANG module?