Skip to main content

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

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com, draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Information and Data Models for Packet Discard Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Information and Data Models for Packet Discard Reporting'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

From Shepherd Report: No.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

From Shepherd Report:

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/)

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Diego Lopez. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note