Re: [Anima] What is intent ?

Zoran Despotovic <> Wed, 26 July 2017 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721EB126B7E for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fUPe8msYwzux for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DAE31200FC for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLH96576; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:30:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:29:40 +0100
From: Zoran Despotovic <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] What is intent ?
Thread-Index: AQHTBYWK22bsT2APAkm2LAxFoDd0RKJlGP0AgACaTSA=
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:29:41 +0000
Message-ID: <C8521128B8408840AEE50E7B2147EFD51C722379@lhreml502-mbx>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.59784507.002F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7acec8c1cda2de4e088df28a45357277
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] What is intent ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:30:19 -0000


A little bit off the thread started by Toerless, I believe that the development of the infrastructure on which intents are distributed should not be tightly bound to our understanding of and consensus on what intents are (and what they are not). This, at least, as long as there are other parameters to be distributed over that infrastructure. In that sense, I do agree with Brian's mail. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anima [] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 1:05 AM
To: Toerless Eckert;
Subject: Re: [Anima] What is intent ?

Distribution trimmed to Anima:

Whenever I've asked "Is X Intent?", I've usually been told "No" except for cases where X is too abstract to interpret algorithmically.

But in practice, I believe that many ASAs will need instructions from the NOC to modify their default behaviour. I don't care what we call those instructions; for the prefix management use case we just called them "parameters".

So maybe Anima should focus on parameter distribution more than on Intent. I think that's the point of draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution.
A fairly simple change to the wording of draft-du-anima-an-intent would adapt it to generic parameter distribution.

Converting abstract Intent to concrete parameters can be completely separate from this, and could well be a centralised operation.

Or we could spend another 6 months discussing how to know Intent when we see it. But I would prefer that to happen in NMRG.


On 26/07/2017 08:34, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I have an autonomic network, and i want for another customer another 
> L3VPN service instance in it.  How would i tell the network that i 
> want this ? Via intent or via something else ?
> If it is something else, what is it ? I do not see any other 
> information flow from operator to network beside intent in RFC7575 or draft-ietf-anima-reference-model.
> Maybe i am missing something.
> If it is intent, how would it look like ? Could it simply be a 
> definition of an L3VPN service instance in the model defined in rfc8049 ? If not, why not ?
> IMHO: Intent in ANIMA includes service definitions such as what 
> rfc8049 is, except that we would reserve the right to eliminate all 
> parameters of rfc8049 for which we figure out autonomic ways to 
> determine them. Which alas seems to be quite difficult for most parameters.
> Other folks in the IETF clearly think that a service definition is NOT 
> intent, but intent can only be some yet unclear high level policy. If 
> thats the prevailing opinion/wisdom in the IETF, then IMHO we need to 
> be more explicit about the fact that Intent is not the only input into 
> the network but that there is also other input. Such as services. And 
> anything else that people do not want to call Intent.
> Lets assume service and other necessary data operator->network should 
> not be called intent. But lets say the superset of intent + services + 
> everything else is called eg: "information". I think that 
> draft-du-anima-an-intent would equally apply to all information we 
> would want to distribute into an autonomic network.
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list

Anima mailing list