Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13
review-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13-tsvart-lc-tuexen-2026-06-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2026-06-22
Requested 2026-06-08
Authors John Evans , Oleksandr Pylypenko , Jeffrey Haas , Aviran Kadosh , Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2026-07-09 (Latest revision 2026-06-24)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -03 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -09 by Sergio Belotti (diff)
Intdir Early review of -09 by Satoru Matsushima (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -10 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Roni Even (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Carlos Pignataro
Assignment Reviewer Michael Tüxen
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/kpSB6LRNP4BWZz7rn2RJMbog3t4
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-06-23
review-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-13-tsvart-lc-tuexen-2026-06-23-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

From a transport perspective this document looks good. I have only
two questions or nits:
1. Is the indentation of the last paragraph in Section 2 as intended?
   Is it indented to be part of the "Unintended packet discards"
   definition or does is apply to discards in general?
2. Doesn't the second example in Section 5.3 violate the fourth requirement
   in Sections 5.2? The packet is counted against the traffic and discard class.