[Teas] Re: Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis

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

+1 

Thanks
Sergio

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <dceccare=[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 2:28 PM
> To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP]Re: Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC
> comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or
> opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Cheers
> Daniele
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2024 1:06 PM
> To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP]Re: Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC
> comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis
> 
> From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>
> Sent: 09 November 2024 11:18
> 
> I have recently noted that there are no standardized YANG identities that could be
> used to represent the WSON-LSC, defined in RFC 7688, and flexi-grid LSC, defined
> in RFC 8363
> 
> I am not sure whether these identities are better defined in TE Types (RFC 8776-
> bis) or Layer0 Types (RFC 9093-bis) YANG models but since both drafts are in WG
> LC we can fix in either was this gap
> 
> My personal preference is to add them to RFC 9093-bis in order to avoid the need
> to update TE Types any time a new technology-specific switching type or LSP
> encoding type is defined
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> <tp>
> I agree
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> Italo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]