Re: [Anima] Not the Intents we were looking for: SUPA Intents

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Some clarifications regarding to intents in ANIMA WG with my chair hat on:

a) ANIMA does not have intents as chartered work item although we did mention intent in our charter description text.

It means we enough WG participators to discuss the intent and it usage in autonomic networks. Participators are encouraged to submit intent documents as individual drafts, discuss in mail list and apply time slots (giving priority to current chartered work items). But we are unlikely to do some formal work, like adopt intent documents, before rechartering, which it is not expected to happen before September 2016.

b) technically, if we included intent content in our next charter, what ANIMA would concentrate on should be the intent oriented autonomic networks rather than general intent. It mains: a) the intent should be able to understood and performed by every autonomic node, although how to execute on these nodes may be implementation specific, therefore out of ANIMA scope; b) since autonomic network would like to minimize the human input, so the ANIMA intent should carry only the necessary information from network administrators or network customers.

With the above understanding, my individual hat on, I think policy work that SUPA proposed is different from potential ANIMA intent. But when the time for ANIMA to work on ANIMA intent come, we may need to check what SUPA already provided. If something from SUPA are helpful, for example ANIMA intent may be a specific subset or sub-version of SUPA general policy, we may reuse it or start with it.

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E
>Carpenter
>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:13 AM
>To: Michael Richardson; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Anima] Not the Intents we were looking for: SUPA Intents
>
>On 19/08/2015 07:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> {intentionally not cross-posted to SUPA}
>>
>> While working on other things today (and being at home with a pink-eyed
>kid),
>> I found the tab that was open to watch the IETF93 SUPA BOF.
>
>I didn't do that, but having looked at the SUPA minutes, I then looked
>at the IBNEMO documents, which make more sense to me than SUPA.
>However, both IBNEMO and SUPA are definitely in the top/down north/south
>configuration management tradition.
>
>> I also had saved ~80 emails from the SUPA list to read.
>> I found that the use cases from the SUPA BOF do not really match how we
>> envision Intents to work with ANIMA ASAs.  In particular, the model that
>> is envisioned is far more SDN-like; that is with a uber-intelligent
>> centralized command and control system that interprets SUPA Intents into
>> things like Virtual Private Cloud (VPC/VPN) configurations, via various
>> things like YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF models, (but probably other data
>models)
>>
>> It isn't clear to me if SUPA Intents are going to be designed to cross-AS
>> boundaries, but it seems like they could easily do this.
>>
>> It seems like the ANIMA ACP is critically important for SUPA to be able to
>> implement policies, but that's an operator convenience.  They could
>equally
>> well use other (more expensive!) management networks.
>>
>> In the recording, I heard various things about ANIMA... I don't think
>> anyone overstated the situation, but I think that the message that ANIMA
>> Intents != SUPA Intents was too understated.
>
>Agreed, judging by the documents. Anyway it seems clear that SUPA is
>not yet ready to get chartered.
>
>> Bert Wijnen (didn't he declare he was retired?)
>
>Well yes, but as I told him when he said that, retirement often
>doesn't work first time ;-).
>
>> points on the list to
>>      IBNEMO - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo
>>
>> There was a SUPA telecon yesterday morning, but I had a nomcom call,
>> so I missed it.  It seems that there ought to be significant overlap,
>> and yet I don't see it.
>
>I don't see much overlap with SUPA.
>
>If IBNEMO comes up with a good data model and syntax for expressing
>intent, we should consider using it. I guess one of the authors of
>draft-zhou-netmod-intent-nemo and draft-xia-sdnrg-nemo-language
>can advise us about that. But actually the Nemo intent language looks
>more specific than I expect Anima intent to be: compare with
>draft-du-anima-an-intent and
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-anima-prefix-management-01#section
>-5.1
>
>    Brian
>
>_______________________________________________
>Anima mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima