> To be clear, are you talking about anchor channels or non-anchor channels?
> Because in anchor channels, all outputs other than the anchor outputs provided
> for fee bumping can't be spent until the commitment transaction is mined, which
> means RBF/CPFP isn't relevant.
I think the distinction is irrelevant here as pre-anchor channel if I have one spendable HTLC output spend and I gain knowledge of my counterparty commitment transaction from networks mempools, the spend is malleable and can be used as a CPFP. If you assume anchor channels, you have 2 anchor outputs as long both parties have balance outputs or pending HTLCs.
Though pre-anchor, legacy channels the counterparty commitment transaction will have to be attached with a fee under min mempool fee for the replacement cycling to happen, and let network congestion happen.
I think the more interesting case is a future world with package relay deployed at the p2p level and anchor output on the lightning-side. Here the most advanced replacement as illustrated in the test can happen (where commitment has an anchor output - see L125).
Best,
Antoine