Re: [Anima] Intent: -> NMRG -> ANIMA -> NMRG -> (ANIMA?)!) Re: proposed anima charter (was; Re: New work item proposal / agenda request)

["Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:00
> To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Intent: -> NMRG -> ANIMA -> NMRG -> (ANIMA?)!) Re:
> proposed anima charter (was; Re: New work item proposal / agenda request)
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:37:43AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > To put it bluntly, we know how to distribute Intent in an ANIMA network
> > (GRASP flooding if it's small, GRASP bulk transfer if it's big). We can
> > even guess that it's likely to look exactly like JSON, which is trivial
> to
> > represent in GRASP/CBOR. But we have no idea what it actually *is*.
> 
> Yes, thats the easy part and we have a draft waiting to be revived when
> we can conclude that that part of work is needed. But right now we have
> the larger issue of not knowing WHAT would be Intent, or how much of
> Intent could really usefully be flooded as opposed to requiring
> different distribution mechanism.

Indeed one of the challenges is to define "what" intent is, but we should not limit our view/understanding to the "intent" itself.
IP networking is not only the IP address, same for Intent-based networking, it is not only the intent format that is of importance. Other mechanisms, and a comprehensive view/understanding is required to know how to design the right thing(s).

I think where ANIMA could help NMRG is in "scoping" the problem (what intent means in an ANIMA context/network) and/or with use cases/examples of intent-driven operations/behaviors.

Best regards, laurent.

> 
> > That indeed seems to be a research problem.
> 
> I think terminology is more a political issue, but yes, NMRG is the more
> appropriate place to solve this.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> > Regards
> >    Brian
> >
> > On 2019-02-21 02:57, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >> I find it slightly confusing that we say that Intent is part of the
> framework, but
> > >> that we don't work on it without a recharter, but I guess the goal is
> not to
> > >> forget it, but not to go down a rathole.
> > >
> > > Wanted to reassert what i hope is the WG agreement about Intent, and
> we
> > > had discussed this since at least IETF102:
> > >
> > > Intent was given to us (ANIMA) from NMRG as part of the initial chater
> > > scope. We did include it into the reference model, but we failed to
> find
> > > enough actionable agreement on what Intent is and what to do about it.
> > >
> > > We therefore for now would like to punt the next steps of work on
> Intent
> > > back to NMRG and hope we can make enough progress there to later bring
> > > it back into ANIMA.
> > >
> > > I had given a more detailed presentation to this effect at the friday
> > > NMRG workshop at IETF101 in Montreal, but somehow i can not find any
> > > slides from that friday meeting. Maybe Laurent can comment were that
> > > NMRG workshop notes are. There where more really good presentations.
> > >
> > > I have appended the one i gave to this email.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >     Toerless
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Anima mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> > >
> 
> --
> ---
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima