The reviewed Internet-Draft introduces YANG module “ietf-packet-discard-reporting” that defines a hierarchical schema for reporting received, transmitted and discarded network packets along with a detailed classification of reasons for packet discard.

Whilst the module is relatively long, it is pretty trivial from the YANG point of view in that it defines just the data hierarchy and no additional “business rules” expressed e.g. via features or “when”/“must” statements.

It is not clear to me why the YANG module is touted as a representation of an *information* model. Does it mean that an ensuing data model will contain more details or be different in another way?

Perhaps related to the previous question is this: what is the reason for using the data structure extension per RFC 8791? The I-D text indicates that the schema could eventually be implemented in network devices for reporting packet statistics, so “ietf-packet-discard-reporting” could IMO simply define regular state data.

In many places, the module defines sibling containers “v4” and “v6” with identical contents. This repetitive character is properly handled by YANG groupings but, from the design point of view, I would prefer using a list with address family as the key — using either “address-family” type from “iana-routing-types” (RFC 8294) or an ad hoc type. This would not only make the schema tree shorter but also make the module potentially applicable to other address families. If there is a reason for using the hard-coded containers, it should be stated in the I-D.

Nit: The module revisions in the “revision” statement and the file name in “<CODE BEGINS>” differ.