Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-04
review-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-clarke-2023-04-04-00

I have been asked to review this document on behalf of YANG Doctors.  While I
do not have domain experience in layer 0 optical, I found the document and YANG
module fairly easy to get through.  Since this document is a bis for RFC9093, I
did a pyang check to make sure that there are no backwards-incompatible changes
between the 9093 version and this one.  I did not find any.  The new module
adds new types, identities, and nodes.

In terms of issues, the leafref and must in the transceiver-mode are relative
back to the transceiver-capabilities grouping, which uses the transceiver-mode
grouping.  But what if transceiver-mode is used outside of this context?  Those
references may break.

In terms of nits, I found an inconsistent use of first-letter capitalization
and period termination in descriptions.  I also noted that both the document
and the module lack an overall summary of changes between this version and the
9093 version (and I'm just setting the interrupt bit to make sure the authors
address that).  There is also an inconsistent use of quotes around various
units.

I notice that there are some config true nodes that are a union with "empty" as
being one of the options.  Some of the nodes explain when to use empty, but
others do not.  I think it would be good to be consistent with the "empty"
explanation.