I already had an exchange with the authors about these comments, but I just want to formally drop them into the system. They're all relatively minor editorial points. Adrian === It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice. --- Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource block. --- Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the output matrix box. --- Page 10 <ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix> is missing a '>' --- In 5.3.1 please s/draft/document/ twice. --- I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1. I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section, but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model are built. --- Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE? --- Page 15 You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph --- The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes? --- Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the references section. --- [G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used. --- s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/