[CCAMP]RFC9093-bis status and possible WG LC

["Sergio Belotti (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear chairs, WG,
On behalf of other co-authors/contributors of RFC9093-bis<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis/10/> I'd like to ask opinion and recommendation to chairs and WG, on how to proceed with RFC9093-bis with respect the WG LC.
The draft is stable and in good shape, we have closed almost all the issues apart one that require still some discussion in the group.
In the context of L0 different YANG model we have considered obviously the L0 functionality related to transponder and muxponder.

In particular Optical Impairment Topology describe Transponder and Transceiver capability, but not all the L1 functionality (e.g. inverse multiplexing, FEC) that belong to transponder characteristics have been analyzed

While the L0 application-code provide a clear identification of the photonics signal up to the modulation and FEC format, and the L1 OTN or Ethernet multiplexing schema clearly define the OTN or Ethernet payload structure where present, there is a set of adaptation layer and possible inverse multiplexing configuration in the middle that are not described in any model.

We have defined for that a specific issue #81<https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis/issues/81> in github with the scope to define any data nodes attributes that can be suitable to describe this gap
The analysis is still on-going and we are close to be able providing definite answer to this problem and missing information

The reason of this email is to ask chairs, WG opinion about the possibility to ask for WG LC , considering the definite solution of the pending issue in the context of WG LC comments.
The advantages to start now the WG LC is to be able to progress other two drafts, that are stable and ready without any pending issue, as flexible grid topology<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang/16/>  and Optical Impairment Topology Yang model<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/16/>.
The alternative would be to wait to complete analysis and solution for the RFC9093-bis pending issue before starting WG LC , and consequently also progress the other two drafts.
As authors/contributors we slightly would prefer the first option  but we are happy to hear feedback from WG.

Attached the presentation for IETF-120 that also describe a bit the remaining issue for RFC9093-bis.

Thanks
Sergio (on behalf of co-authors/contributors )