# 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 '<CODE BEGINS>' and
'<CODE ENDS>' 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.