Review l0-tunnel-attributes grouping

[italobusi]

Few questions:

1. It seems identical to the wson-tunnel-attributes grouping. Should it be moved to layer0-types-ext and imported instead?
2. Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16
3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14
4. Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?

[italobusi]

2. Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16 3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14 4. Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?

Still need to be addressed

[danielkinguk]

Currently a partial list, we need to decide if we provide a full list of configuration parameters, or import parameters. To be discussed on the list, and/or at IETF 111. Open questions, include:

• Do we need to support legacy services, or focus on new <10G, or include >10G, Coherent >40G, 500G, et al?
• What additional parameters will need to be included, if defined in this I-D?
• If we import parameters, where from/which model?

We will need to wait on discussion to conclude on l0-types-extensions parameters before we can finalise tunnel parameters.

[danielkinguk]

Italo and Sergio to discuss open issue and provide update for next call (if possible).

[sergiobelotti]

2. Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16
3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14
4. Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?

Still need to be addressed

3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14

Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14 in layer0-types-ext is closed so, accordingly, we should consider "termination-type" not needed

[italobusi]

2021-11-29 Aihua/Italo/Sergio

2. Is the fec-type attribute needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#16

The fec-type is already covered by the transceiver configuration, so it could be removed from the l0-tunnel-attributes grouping.

Few additional doubts:

1. Should we enforce all the transceivers within the same OTSiG to use the same fec-type?
2. Where is the transceiver configuration reported within the tunnel model
3. Is there a need to constraint which transceivers can be used by the OTSiG on the primary and/or on the secondary path?

3. Is the termination-type needed? See also l0-types-ext Issue ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang#14

More discussion is still needed.

Something at the tunnel level has to be configured e.g., when setting up an Optical tunnel to support an OTN link, it has to be specified whether the optical tunnel is supporting an OTU4 link or an ODU4 link.

In case of asymmetric client-signal configuration, it is not yet clear whether something for the tunnel's source and destination TTP has to be specified.

4. Is the bit-stuffing attribute needed? What is its meaning?

Not discussed

Note that the wavelength-assignment has to be moved into this grouping:

https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-tunnel-yang/issues/16#issuecomment-981696043

[italobusi]

2022-04-28 Flexi-grid call

This is the slide developed during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-00.pptx

[italobusi]

2022-05-05 Flexi-grid call

These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-01.pptx

[italobusi]

2022-05-12 Flexi-grid call

These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-02.pptx

[italobusi]

2022-05-26 Flexi-grid call

These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-03.pptx

[italobusi]

2022-06-16 Flexi-grid call

These are the slides updated during the call today: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-04.pptx

Based on this analysis it seems there is no need for the termination-type attribute.

More discussion is needed to understand how the WDM tunnel can be dimensioned (100G or 400G) in case of a muxponder supporting different rates at the network side: the rate of the client signal is not the same as the rate of the WDM tunnel and the rate supported by the muxponder on the network side is not unique

[aguoietf]

2022-06-30 flex-grid call

Updated slides: wdm-tunnel-scenarios-05.pptx

[aguoietf]

2023-12-14: Agreed to remove bit-stuffing from l0-tunnel-attribute grouping Agreed to remove all identities for term-type