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

[Duzongpeng <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

         Some personal understanding to share.

         Although sharing the name “intent”, SUPA intent and ANIMA intent have different motivations and ways to define intent.

         SUPA intent begins with a common information model, while the ANIMA intent will likely be defined by using some use cases first.

         Furthermore, the aim of autonomic is to make intent as less as possible, and as simple as possible to ease the network management jobs.

         ANIMA intent will increase bit-by-bit while the autonomic service agents are being defined bit-by-bit.

IMO, any input from the operator to make the network more autonomic can be considered as an “intent” in ANIMA.

         Currently, perhaps because the use cases are not too many, I do not find too much overlap between SUPA intent and ANIMA intent.

         My suggestion is to develop them separately unless clear evidence is found that autonomic network needs the information model defined in SUPA.

Best Regards
Zongpeng Du

From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 5:14 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; John Strassner
Cc: Michael Richardson; Anima WG
Subject: Re: [Anima] Not the Intents we were looking for: SUPA Intents

Hi Brian,

> 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.

<jcs>
I'd like to know why. This could actually help both SUPA and NEMO.
</jcs>

> However, both IBNEMO and SUPA are definitely in the top/down
> north/south configuration management tradition.

<jcs>
As opposed to what?
</jcs>

> I don't see much overlap with SUPA.

<jcs>
I'd like to know why. Is this because you don't envision using ECA
or logic rules, or some other reason?
</jcs>

> 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

<jcs>
Please see my earlier reply to Michael Richardson.
One could argue that this example is not "intent" as defined by ONF,
ODL GBP, OpenStack Congress, or SUPA's declarative logic
(though SUPA's ECA policy rule could easily express this). This is
because in other declarative designs, those SDOs have decided
that intent should NOT specify low-level parameters like IP
addresses or port numbers or DSCPs. That of course doesn't
mean that ANIMA couldn't do this, but it would mean that ANIMA's
intent model diverges from the industry.

This also clearly influences the underlying data model that you choose.
</jcs>


>     Brian

regards,
John

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima



--
regards,
John