Information and Data Models for Packet Discard Reporting
draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-16

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Carlos P. for the INTDIR review.  Thanks to Derrell P. for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for the edit to fix my discuss.


Thanks to the authors for a nice draft.

Authors, please look at Derrell's SECDIR review if you haven't already.

This is a nit, but why only DDoS and not just DoS traffic, (which would include DDoS)?

Thanks for referencing the IPFIX models and methods but they seem to be a rather weird comparison to the YANG approach.  It would not be strange to have an IPFIX exporter on each line card capturing the details of all the interfaces on that line card.  It would export as a unique observation domain to a mediator in the chassis providing a single external export.  That would create potentially more work on the collector process to make sense of drops compared to the YANG model approach.  I'm not sure that the abstract information models easily translate back and forth between YANG and IPFIX - even though you would hope they would.  They might, if you focused the information model less on a hardware centric construct and more on the protocol centric view point.  Then provided linkage of the protocol actions (L2 drops, L3 drops, etc.) with a pointer back to the hardware realizations of those action points.  Then the information model would be grounded in the core pieces of information that this model is trying to capture.  A more agnostic view point of the information model vis a vis YANG or IPFIX.

Lastly, I'm not really sure how to think about the `flow` entry in the information model.  It's orthogonal to the device and interface grouping logically.  And it might be that packets get dropped / changed based on flow based rules, but that is accounted for very differently in this draft.  I'm struggling to understand the intention, but it doesn't hamper implementing the model defined in the draft.

[Ballot comment]
I really do like the intended scope of separately identifying the reasons for discard to enable automated network mitigation of unintended packet loss and appreciate the work that has gone into this model. I would love to see this supported in deployment.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

Also thanks for the discussion and updates to the documents to address the concerns raised in my original ballot.

[Ballot discuss]
In section 5.2 there is this use of a MUST:

"However, implementations MUST clearly document which features are supported and how they map to the DM."

I'm wondering how anyone would really validate that?  This doesn't seem an appropriate use of MUST to me.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Carlos P. for the INTDIR review.  Thanks to Derrell P. for the SECDIR review.

Thanks to the authors for a nice draft.

Authors, please look at Derrell's SECDIR review if you haven't already.

This is a nit, but why only DDoS and not just DoS traffic, (which would include DDoS)?

Thanks for referencing the IPFIX models and methods but they seem to be a rather weird comparison to the YANG approach.  It would not be strange to have an IPFIX exporter on each line card capturing the details of all the interfaces on that line card.  It would export as a unique observation domain to a mediator in the chassis providing a single external export.  That would create potentially more work on the collector process to make sense of drops compared to the YANG model approach.  I'm not sure that the abstract information models easily translate back and forth between YANG and IPFIX - even though you would hope they would.  They might, if you focused the information model less on a hardware centric construct and more on the protocol centric view point.  Then provided linkage of the protocol actions (L2 drops, L3 drops, etc.) with a pointer back to the hardware realizations of those action points.  Then the information model would be grounded in the core pieces of information that this model is trying to capture.  A more agnostic view point of the information model vis a vis YANG or IPFIX.

Lastly, I'm not really sure how to think about the `flow` entry in the information model.  It's orthogonal to the device and interface grouping logically.  And it might be that packets get dropped / changed based on flow based rules, but that is accounted for very differently in this draft.  I'm struggling to understand the intention, but it doesn't hamper implementing the model defined in the draft.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Derrell Piper for their secdir review.

Section 8.2, para 2:  Please consider asking the RFC Editor to swap out RFC 8446 with RFC 9846 when it is published (near the end of Auth48)

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

There are a few topics that I would like to discuss.

1) It is not clear to me whether this document considers MPLS traffic as L2 or L3 (it is somewhat L2.5). Some aspects of L3 apply like "no route" but for MPLS it should be "no ILM". Then again there is some coverage for SR-MPLS and invalid-label under layer 3 so I am assuming it is considered under L3? In any case, I was looking for some clarity and if discards for MPLS traffic would benefit from their separate counters as opposed to putting them under L3. Under L3, there is also address-family that covers IPv4 and IPv6 but not MPLS. There are also cases where the MPLS label is disposed and inner IP packet processed so we get multiple processing stages (see related point on double counting further below). Same happens on the egress direction as well.

2) Regarding the following text:

5. A frame accounted for at Layer 2 MUST NOT be accounted for at Layer 3 and vice versa. This is to avoid double counting.

I am assuming this is regarding discards. AFAIK packet reception would get counted at both L2 and L3 layers? There are also some other similar requirements for avoiding double counting which are not very clear to me. If we take example of encapsulations (MPLS, IP-in-IP, etc.) then there can be multiple layers of encapsulation that get disposed or imposed as the packet traverses a router. How are they going to get accounted for in a manner that avoids double counting?

3) Regarding unclear normative MUST in the following text:

9, When there are multiple reasons for discarding a packet, the ordering of discard class reporting MUST be defined. Typically, this can be exposed by an implementation by means of discard-order-capability.

I am not sure what "MUST be defined" means. It sounds vague for something that is a MUST.

4) Regarding the following text, what about QoS based on IEEE 802.1Q PCP bits or based on MPLS EXP bits ? What about QoS marking based on other than DSCP?

10. If Diffserv [RFC2475] is not used, no-buffer discards MUST be reported as class[id="0"], which represents the default class.

5) Could you clarify what is meant by "origin" here?

14. Traffic to the device control plane (to-CPU) has its own class. Traffic from the device control plane (from-CPU) is accounted for by origin, independent of the forwarding mechanism (e.g., any egress policer it traverses), and MUST also be accounted for in the same way as other egress traffic.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Other thanks to Carlos Pignataro, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review (Ready with issues):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-14-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2026-07-03/ (and I have yet to read a reply by the authors)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Section 4.1

```
      leaf checksum-error {
        type yang:counter64;
        description
          "The number of received packets discarded due
          to a checksum error.";
      }
```
is ambiguous as there is no check-sum in the IPv6 header. Be specific and states that it only applies to IPv4/MPLS.

```
    leaf mtu-exceeded {
        type yang:counter64;
        description
          "The number of received packets discarded due to
          MTU exceeded.";
      }
```
MTU exceeded does not happen when receiving a packet but when transmitting (i.e., after forwarding) a packet on (an)other interface(s). Same for "no-route". The problem is even more complex when the forwarded packet is a multicast one where it can be forwarded on n egress interfaces but cannot for m egress interfaces.

`leaf invalid-sid` it is unclear whether only routers whose address is the destination address have to count or other routers in the path (which should not check) also have to count.

`"The number of packets discarded due to parity errors."` does it mean that the device CPU experimented a parity error during the receiving/forwarding of the packet ? Please be specific.

I wonder how to ``"The number of packets discarded due to Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) protection policies."` as many DDoS are mitigated by routing to a null-route or layer-3 ACL, which are different counters. Should it be counted twice ?

### Lack of layer-4 ACL

I am puzzled by the absence in the model and in the text about layer-4 ACL support as they are often used. There should be at least some text in the introduction and abstract about this limitation.

### Lack of encapsulation/decapsulation discard

Probably due a misreading of mine, but I see no discard counters when en/decapsulating a tunneled packet ? And/or how it can be differentiated from a forwarding operation.

### Lack of addressing the INT-directorate review

As I second most of Carlos Pignataro's int-dir review, I am elevating them to a DISCUSS level: please address Carlos' issues.

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 4 (and its sub-section)

To be pendantic, I am really surprised (dare I say shocked) by the use of a data modeling language to specify an information model rather than UML or ER diagrams. See also RFC 3444.

Even more 'data model' flavour are the specific data types such as `type yang:counter64;`, which clearly belongs to a data model and not an information model.

Suggest renaming section 4 as a YANG *data* model (as well as changing the title & abstract to remove 'information model').

If I was cynical, I would hint that it is more to have more implementations having 'something' like the information while not implementing exactly the YANG data model... But, this is only my personal feeling.

### Section 4.1

s/leaf ttl-expired/leaf hop-limit-expired/ after all we are in 2026.

`grouping errors-l2-tx ` would benefit from more leaves (e.g., interface down, no carrier, exceeded transmission attemps, buffer full, ...).

Should something more specific about IPv6 extension headers be added in addition of `leaf invalid-packet ` ?

While I am sure that some people will disagree with me (hence a COMMENT and not a DISCUSS), `leaf invalid-label ` should be in errors-l2-rx as MPLS is more a layer-2 (e.g., labels are valid only on a link) especially when a label is flagged as 'invalid'.

[Ballot comment]
# IESG review of draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-14

CC @MikeBishop

## Nits

### Terminology

#### Section 2, paragraph 4
```
-    Packet discard:  It accounts for any instance where a packet is
-                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+    Packet discard:  Any instance where a packet is
+                    ^
```

#### Section 2, paragraph 5
```
-    Intended packet discards (Intended discards, for short):  Are packets
-                                                              ^^^^^
+    Intended packet discards (Intended discards, for short):  Packets
+                                                              ^
```

#### Section 2, paragraph 6
```
-    Unintended packet discards (Unintended discards, for short):  Are
-                                                                -----
-      packets that were dropped, which the network operator otherwise
-      ^
+      Packets that were dropped, which the network operator otherwise
+      ^
```

[Ballot discuss]
I really do like the intended scope of separately identifying the reasons for discard to enable automated network mitigation of unintended packet loss and appreciate the work that has gone into this model. I would love to see this supported.

I do however have some concern or at least the need to understand more around the treatment of congestion, and would really appreciate guidance and discussion under 3 perhaps closely related topics. Here, I need to understand more, because at the moment this seems to go against the goal of trying to provide clarity around the reason for a drop:

(1) To me it is unclear which category congestion-related loss of “normal” traffic (e.g. BE) should be assigned. I was thinking that traffic bursts are expected to result in some chance of packet discard at a router and that this ought to be encouraged to trigger control for the transport congestion control to yield effective utilisation. They are a necessary side effect of probing for available capacity. I therefore suggest that some loss/AQM marks are not a result of a configuration mistake, so to which category do these congestion-related discards belong? Ought these to be a separate category exactly to reveal more insight into where losses occur.

(2) Then, AQM: It is good to encourage queues to configure AQM, but that also results in discard that will be statistical as the endpoints seek to converge on the available bottleneck capacity. These discards are not a configuration problem, and seem entirely normal, at least expected during a busy hour, although it would still seem to be helpful for an operator to know capacity is being often reached (I suspect also they could also observable as the utilisation by packet counters). Are we sure we wish to count these as unintended, rather than in a separate category?

(3) I agree that traffic policing/conditioning for QoS can result in discarded that are not anticipated. e.g., this discard might be due to overload of a provisioned EF service which the document correctly (in my reading) is an intended packet discard. This might be clearly stated as an example?  For the Lower than Best Effort (LBE) PHB, such loss seems acceptable/normal under periods of high utilisation, so are these also intended?, and should this also be explicitly said as an example ?

[Ballot comment]
I really do like the intended scope of separately identifying the reasons for discard to enable automated network mitigation of unintended packet loss and appreciate the work that has gone into this model. I would love to see this supported.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

three new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-common
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-common
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-sx
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-sx
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

three new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-packet-discard-reporting-common
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-common
Prefix: pdr-common
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-packet-discard-reporting-sx
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting-sx
Prefix: pdr-sx
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-packet-discard-reporting
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-packet-discard-reporting
Prefix: pdr
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-06-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com, draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Information and Data Models for Packet Discard Reporting) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Information
and Data Models for Packet Discard Reporting'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-06-22. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an Information Model and specifies a
  corresponding YANG data model for packet discard reporting.  The
  Information Model provides an implementation-independent framework
  for classifying packet loss - both intended (e.g., due to policy) and
  unintended (e.g., due to congestion or errors) - to enable automated
  network mitigation of unintended packet loss.  The YANG data model
  specifies an implementation of this Information Model for network
  elements with a focus on the interface, device, and control-plane
  discards.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc2475: An Architecture for Differentiated Services (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)

# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on nine
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The information model (written in YANG) is applicable to different data models:
YANG (this draft) and IPFIX (an individual draft at the time of completing this
writeup: draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie). This applicability has been
discussed on the list, especially in what relates to the successive formal WG
calls (adoption and last call), with positive results. The use of the YANG formalism
to describe information models opens a new path to identify commonalities across
specific data models, enhancing the understanding of data model semantics and
supporting alternative ways for managing the data model lifecycle. A specific
YANG Doctor review on the information model, with the question of doing an IM in
YANG, was supportive of the draft.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting.

YANG validation for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-12, run on 2026-03-14 reports
0 errors and 0 warnings

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

A number of nits and formatting warnings were generated, but none is considered
relevant.

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. List any new IANA
registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are
the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of
designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on nine
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The information model (written in YANG) is applicable to different data models:
YANG (this draft) and IPFIX (an individual draft at the time of completing this
writeup: draft-evans-opsawg-ipfix-discard-class-ie). This applicability has been
discussed on the list, especially in what relates to the successive formal WG
calls (adoption and last call), with positive results. The use of the YANG formalism
to describe information models opens a new path to identify commonalities across
specific data models, enhancing the understanding of data model semantics and
supporting alternative ways for managing the data model lifecycle. A specific
YANG Doctor review on the information model, with the question of doing an IM in
YANG, was supportive of the draft.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting.

YANG validation for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-12, run on 2026-03-14 reports
0 errors and 0 warnings

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

A number of nits and formatting warnings were generated, but none is considered
relevant.

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. List any new IANA
registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are
the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of
designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on nine
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The data model (and its supporting information model) is applicable to related
data models. This applicability has been discussed on the list, especially in
what relates to the successive formal WG calls (adoption and last call), with
positive results. The use of the YANG formalism to describe information models
opens a new path to identify commonalities across specific data models, enhancing
the understanding of data model semantics and supporting alternative ways for
managing the data model lifecycle. A specific YANG Doctor review on the information
model, with the question of doing an IM in YANG, was supportive of the draft.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting.

YANG validation for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-12, run on 2026-03-14 reports
0 errors and 0 warnings

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

A number of nits and formatting warnings were generated, but none is considered
relevant.

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. List any new IANA
registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are
the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of
designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on nine
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The data model (and its supporting information model) is applicable to related
data models. This applicability has been discussed on the list, especially in
what relates to the successive formal WG calls (adoption and last call), with
positive results. The use of the YANG formalism to describe information models
opens a new path to identify commonalities across specific data models, enhancing
the understanding of data model semantics and supporting alternative ways for
managing the data model lifecycle.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting.

YANG validation for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-12, run on 2026-03-14 reports
0 errors and 0 warnings

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

A number of nits and formatting warnings were generated, but none is considered
relevant.

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. List any new IANA
registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are
the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of
designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on nine
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The data model (and its supporting information model) is sapplicable to related
data models. This applicability has been discussed on the list, especially in
what relates to the successive formal WG calls (adoption and last call), with
positive results.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting.

YANG validation for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-12, run on 2026-03-14 reports
0 errors and 0 warnings

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

A number of nits and formatting warnings were generated, but none is considered
relevant.

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document, and calls for minimal but necessary assignments. List any new IANA
registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are
the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of
designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on ninexi
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The data model (and its supporting information model) is sapplicable to related
data models. This applicability has been discussed on the list, especially in
what relates to the successive formal WG calls (adoption and last call), with
positive results.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting. A warning remains, and
should be addressed or properly justified:

~~~
libyang warn: Ext plugin "ly2 NACM v1":
Extension nacm:default-deny-all is not allowed in unknown statement.
(/ietf-packet-discard-reporting:/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/if:statistics/{extension='nacm:default-deny-all'})
~~~

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The following nits, warnings and comments remain and should be addressed:

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

The warnings above on "weird spacing" are produced by the YANG tree
representation and should therefore be ignored.

Beyond this, the informative reference identified as RED93 appears incomplete.
A search on the title provided for the referene suggests to use the following
bibliographic data to complete it:

~~~
S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, "Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance",
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 397-413, Aug. 1993, doi: 10.1109/90.251892.
~~~


### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.


# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel

## Document History

### Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as
a work item there?

No, the document was created and only considered by OPSAWG

### Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not
adopt the document?

No.

### Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

### For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

The proposed information model is reported as implemented or mapped on ninexi
hardware platforms of four different device vendors. A YANG-compliant
open-source SLAX script implements a subset of the data model
(https://github.com/o-pylypenko-aws/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-sample/)

The data model (and its supporting information model) is sapplicable to related
data models. This applicability has been discussed on the list, especially in
what relates to the successive formal WG calls (adoption and last call), with
positive results.

## Additional Reviews

### Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses fundamentally operational aspects, within the OPS Area
remit. Since the discard event information may impact interdomain operations,
a review by the INT area was requested and it is available at the Datatracker.
The identified nits were covered in version -10.

### Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has received two reviews (-031 and -10) from a YANG Doctor
(Ladislav Lothka), addressed by the authors.

### If the document contains a YANG module, has the final
version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as
specified in RFC 8342?

There are no open errors with YANG syntax or formatting. A warning remains, and
should be addressed or properly justified:

~~~
libyang warn: Ext plugin "ly2 NACM v1":
Extension nacm:default-deny-all is not allowed in unknown statement.
(/ietf-packet-discard-reporting:/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/if:statistics/{extension='nacm:default-deny-all'})
~~~

### Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

pyang 2.7.1 and yanglint 2.1.30 were used.


## Document Shepherd Checks

### Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete
and correctly designed. It is ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
Director.

### Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

Security Considerations have been systematically provided, improving
along the document evolution, both for the data model and the underlying
information model.

IANA Considerations regarding URIs and YANG modules are properly
addressed, as discussed below.

No known common issues are assumed to remain unaddressed.

### What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended type is Proposed Standard, since the document defines a data model
for packet dicard reporting in an interoperable manner. The document uses
BCP14 language and the reported mappings by devices go beyond experimental status.
The Datatracker reflects the correct RFC status.

### Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR disclosure has been properly addressed by email  on the OPSAWG list, andxi
they are available at the list archive.

### Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The five authors have shown their willingness to be listed.

### Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The following nits, warnings and comments remain and should be addressed:

~~~
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 321 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 329 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 349 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1305 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == Line 1314 has weird spacing: '...rection    ide...'

  == (20 more instances...)

  -- The document date (13 January 2026) is 48 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.
~~~

Beyond this, the informative reference identified as RED93 appears incomplete.
A search on the title provided for the referene suggests to use the following
bibliographic data to complete it:

~~~
S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, "Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance",
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 397-413, Aug. 1993, doi: 10.1109/90.251892.
~~~


### Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

### List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available and have been available to the
community for over a year.

### Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

### Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

### Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFC.

### Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with
appropriate reservations in IANA registries under the IANA Consideratios
section. The referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. All
newly proposed IANA registries specify proper initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.

### List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The proposed registries are related to YANG URIs and modules, assumed to
be covered by the YANG Doctor reviews.