Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06 comments

Sheng JIANG <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn> Sat, 04 May 2024 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8278C14F5F3; Fri, 3 May 2024 17:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bj7bqvouNvmh; Fri, 3 May 2024 17:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpbgsg1.qq.com (smtpbgsg1.qq.com [54.254.200.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E6AC14F5ED; Fri, 3 May 2024 17:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-QQ-mid: bizesmtp81t1714782683ta1n4v2j
X-QQ-Originating-IP: 7Dkikivwfqy5a1LtByBORwBwjLcJNAhsTPEN0fGgXc4=
Received: from SJUni ( [221.223.100.59]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Sat, 04 May 2024 08:31:21 +0800 (CST)
X-QQ-SSF: 01400000000000J0Z000000A0000000
X-QQ-FEAT: /gpUuYPpeIVx1+e/b8N4/rsXUtcXev22cm0t3l7ELTZPslHibEJYwiFo5dcI7 pH+Bzca5yw1uIGvhZPor96lxNxcrwU7y+fMmecG013yWsmCDMSINi8a5jU0Ya8eqVJUTgyC /cSv0SMmsBxGt6sh4PTQVGnh4sa5/a/AuRxA2pwIkyh4lV3R/W33Np3Dow+EqD2xttOj33K 1//PvsCDiLOeh1D3Y8uRQHzFCLgkyM9KudaIEGZz8lpCi74cK5qeqDM78Eu+vQ5mFnMqzNR WmavoFZcHxO2aM4T31NqsyMjEFc8UmDVSAODSFl0IWxbg2e/dD/fPzpcSzsIMMMyyJt+9s4 ZahoApuhEDhIFRYSYtq5v9kNdIXjt4L3eOqdPOjxvXX7jSxl6yyRpWBiZoU5mqTfPAohVHr
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
X-BIZMAIL-ID: 4944207289119527860
From: Sheng JIANG <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
To: 'Toerless Eckert' <tte@cs.fau.de>, draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment@ietf.org, anima-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: anima@ietf.org
References: <ZjOvZkSM9YMRkdDr@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZjOvZkSM9YMRkdDr@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 08:31:20 +0800
Message-ID: <C0CC45892178526D+050101da9dba$6444cf80$2cce6e80$@bupt.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFv5HI0JNzdlaSnE6yW50U9YggV+rJbnB7g
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:bupt.edu.cn:qybglogicsvrsz:qybglogicsvrsz4a-1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/eHnK9Q7jn_sJFezAEvgkD58RDHQ>
Subject: Re: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06 comments
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 00:31:55 -0000

Hi, Toerless,

Thanks so much for this great comments. It is very valuable and
constructive. This draft was initiated by end-to-end deterministic
forwarding service. I was too ambitious to make it generic, even I knew
generic was very difficult. Later, we got lost between the specific use case
and a generic mechanism. We got further lost when it came to path-oriented.
It is a lot more complicated using node-by-node negotiation mechanism to
make up a multiple-node path-oriented mechanism than a single-round
path-through mechanism.

Actually, like we mentioned, there is a lot network resources that can make
up various services. Therefore, these seems to be worth a series of
documents. And beyond the potential documents each focuses on a specific
solution, there should be an informational framework document. It could be
the direction to modify this document, if agreed. This would be feasible
with minimum modification in an acceptable timeline, I think. Another
specific-resource document, which had better not be path-oriented, should be
also started as an use case of such framework.

How do you think?

Best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima <anima-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 11:21 PM
> To: draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment@ietf.org;
> anima-chairs@ietf.org
> Cc: anima@ietf.org
> Subject: [Anima] draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06
> comments
> 
> Dear Authors
> 
> Thank you for this work. The document sounds and currently intends to
target
> a full standard specification for arbitrary services management via GRASP.
I
> think this is an unattainable goal. What i think is attainable is to
outline how to
> build such GRASP based signaling specifications, and for that the document
has
> good starting text, but it does not really well focus on that in
comparison to e.g.:
> pre-existing methods.
> 
> If the resource is located on a single GRASP speaking node, such as maybe
> storage, compute or memory, this is easy to imagine:
> 
> - One needs to figure out what the type of resource and the specific
>   resource attributes are.
> 
> - One needs to figure out how to define objectives to find server nodes
>   that meet those resource attirbute needs - aka: memory of a certain
> minimum
>   size, and for example minimum speed, with or without persistance, etc.
pp
> 
> - One then needs to define the GRASP objectives to request/negotiate and
>   re-negotiate such a service consumption request.
> 
> - Finally, one has to define the GRASP objectives to consume such a
resource,
>   e.g. read/write actual memory. I guess this part is not necessarily part
>   of the intended scope of this draft, but could use other pre-existing
>   protocols, but it would help a lot of listing all thise bullet points
and
>   pointing this out explicitly.
> 
> The draft has some of these aspects covered, but it seems very incomplete
and
> in parts confusing. Primarily also because it simply enumerates a long
list of
> possible resources in section 8.2, but does not provide enough
specification to
> actually implement in GRASP any single such resource management solution,
> because there are no mentioning of relevant attributes to show where GRASP
> could be better than existing mechanisms.
> 
> More problematic though is the implication that this draft can support
resource
> management like RSVP, aka: services for path properties. But then it does
not
> explain how the resource management would work when like for a path, it
> requires allocation of resources from multiple nodes together. Is there
some
> on-path signaling like in RSVP, NSIS ? Is there a central controller ?
Does it
> require some fixed path ? What happens when the path changes ? etc. pp.
> 
> And unlike compute, storage, memory resources, path resource management
> has a tremendous number of RFCs specifying thousands of details - around
TE,
> RSVP, RSVP-TE, PCE, Netconf/YANG and so on. And there is no comparison or
> even specific claims of why this GRASP approach would be beneficial for
any
> scenario in which these existing solutions work or where it is understood
that
> they could be adopted to.
> 
> So, i think it would be very useful to discuss primarily the intended
scope of the
> document before going into further details of the text.
> 
> For example, i think it would be very helpful to constrain the scope
single-node
> resource management and discuss the path resource issues/complexities only
> in an appendix like section, pointing to the variety of existing protocols
from
> IETF and suggesting if any, some of the benefits the GRASP approach could
> have.
> 
> If this makes sense, then i would also suggest to select some example
service
> and on each step of the document discuss example details of that service.
> 
> Ideally, the service in question would already have one or more existing
> consumption protocols and the GRASP solution could be presented as a
> unifying single protocol to do discovery, negotiation, selection.
Specifically
> highlighting, that GRASP has network-based discovery, so it can operate
> without the need of prior discovery servers (e.g.; no need to set up a
DNS-SD
> server or CORE-SD server for example)
> 
> I am not sure what the lowest-hanging fruit for such a service would be,
e.g.:
> the type of service for which this management aspect is least well
supported
> today.
> I do not know a lot of details of remote memory access, but i can well
imagine
> how this mechanism could be nice for storage. On the other hand, for
storage,
> i can easily imagine a serious long list of service parameters ranging
from the
> consumption protocol (NFSv3, NFSv4, SMBv1, SMBv2, SMBv3, WebDAV, and a
> lot more), connection parameters (TCP, UDP, credentials), resilience of
storage,
> performance parameters, maximum size, cost, number of files, maximum file
> size, etc. pp). And storage of course would have the nice aspect that it
would
> easily allow negotiation of several of those parameters (such as maximum
> storage allowed, maximum through given to client, session credentials,
sharing
> of the storage across multiple clients.
> 
> Aka: I think that as soon as we think of any specific service, it becomes
clear
> that this document can not be normative for even a small part of relevant
spec
> details, but can only point out how "easy" it is to use GRASP to define
them.
> Aka:
> include text about formal specification of the data model via CDDL, and
easy
> extensibility, etc. pp.
> 
> In the end it would be good to evolve this document into one that has
enough
> details of one service so that a minium interoperable implementation could
be
> built from it. Not because this should be seen as a complete
specification, but
> only to have a prac tical enough explanation that coders can make sense of
it.
> And then highlight the benefits of GRASP, e.g.: why not use other
protocols:
> 
> - lightweight, binary encoded, appropriate for LLN up to SP core networks.
> - In-network discovery - no need to have third-party (services server)
> dependencies
> - Ability to find "closest" resource (network distance).
> - separated security and transport substrate - can deploy GRASP on various
> such substrates
> - CDDL formal specifications of data model
> - easily extensible service properties (as compared to DNS-SD TXT record
> limits).
> - negotation of consumption (not in DNS-SD, CORE-LF/CORE-SD).
> ...
> 
> And with this scope it would make a lot more sense to make this draft
target
> informational.
> If this makes sense then i can provide further detail feednback after
you've
> tried to come up with a version that attempts to re-scope the document
this
> way.
> 
> If you want to keep the path-properties a core goal of the document than
i'd
> have to provide more feedback for that, but i think it would be a lot more
work,
> and much less likely to get through IETF.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> 
> 
> 2	ANIMA
> S. Jiang, Ed.
> 3	Internet-Draft
> BUPT
> 4	Intended status: Standards Track                                 J.
> Dang
> 5	Expires: 4 October 2024
> Huawei
> 6
> Z. Du
> 7
> China Mobile
> 8
> 2 April 2024
> 
> 10	 A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Management Mechanism for
> Resource-
> 11	                         based Network Services
> 12	          draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06
> 
> 14	Abstract
> 
> 16	   This document specifies an autonomic mechanism for resource-based
> 17	   network services deployment and management, using the GeneRic
> 18	   Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) to dynamically exchange the
> 19	   information among the autonomic nodes.  It supports the
> coordination
> 20	   and consistently operations within an autonomic network domain.
> This
> 21	   mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of network
> 22	   resources, although this document only defines the process of
quality
> 23	   transmission service deployment and management.  It can be easily
> 24	   extended to support network services deployment and management
> that
> 25	   is based on other types of network resources.
> 
> 27	Status of This Memo
> 
> 29	   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
> 30	   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
> 32	   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
> 33	   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
> 34	   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current
Internet-
> 35	   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
> 
> 37	   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months
> 38	   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
> any
> 39	   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
> 40	   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
> 42	   This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 October 2024.
> 
> 44	Copyright Notice
> 
> 46	   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
> 47	   document authors.  All rights reserved.
> 
> 49	   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
> 50	   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
> 51	   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this
document.
> 52	   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights
> 53	   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
> 54	   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License
text
> as
> 55	   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
> 56	   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD
License.
> 
> 58	Table of Contents
> 
> 60	   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
> 61	   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
> 62	   3.  Terminology & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
> 63	   4.  A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based
> Network
> 64	           Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
> 65	     4.1.  Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers  . . . . . .
6
> 66	     4.2.  Authentication and Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
> 67	     4.3.  Negotiate Resource with Service Responser . . . . . . . .
6
> 68	     4.4.  Change Reserved Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
> 69	     4.5.  Releasing Resources during Service Ending . . . . . . . .
8
> 70	   5.  Autonomic Resource Management Objectives  . . . . . . . . . .
8
> 71	   6.  Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service
> 72	           Auto-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
> 73	     6.1.  Quality Transmission Service Scenario & Service Type  . .
> 10
> 74	     6.2.  Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service
> 75	           Responser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
> 76	     6.3.  Coordination among Multiple Service Responsers  . . . . .
12
> 77	     6.4.  Service Ending  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
> 78	   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
> 79	   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
> 80	     8.1.  Service type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
> 81	     8.2.  Resource Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
> 82	   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
> 83	   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
> 84	     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
> 85	     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
> 86	   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
> 
> 88	1.  Introduction
> 
> 90	   Traditionally, IP networks are based on the best-efforts model.
The
> 91	   IP layer does not reserve resources for upper-layer applications.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^
> 
> nit:
> s/IP layer/IP protocols/
> 
> 92	   However, more and more emerging applications that require quality
> 93	   services, such as video, VR, AR, and so on.  They need supports
from
> 94	   steady network resources, such as bandwidth, queue, memory,
> priority,
> 95	   computational resources, etc.  On another side, from network
side,
> 96	   more and more generic services, such as quality transmission
> 97	   services, in-network data cache services and computing services,
> 98	   etc., are starting to be deployed so that networks can serve
these
> 99	   resource-consumption applications well.  These network services
are
> 
> nit:
> Please provide references for "quality transmission services", "in-nework
data
> cache services", etc..
> 
> 100	   strongly based on the availability and stability of network
> 101	   resources.
> 
> 103	   To enable these resource-based applications and services, IETF
have
> 104	   developed many resource reservation mechanisms, such as RSVP
> 105	   [RFC2205] that is mainly to reserve bandwidth only and
path-oriented,
> 
> nit:
> When you say many, please cite at least one more example, ideally one most
> different from RSVP.
> 
> 
> 106	   etc.  However, most of them are mainly for reservation during the
> 107	   deployment only and are rigid for dynamic adjustment.
> Furthermore,
> 
> nit:
> It is unclear what other than "during the deployment only" means. Please
> explain in text.
> 
> 108	   most of them are dedicated for a certain type of network
resources.
> 
> 110	   This document introduces an enhanced and extensible mechanism
> that
> 111	   supports dynamically dispatching of network resources, using the
> 112	   GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) defined in [RFC8990]
> to
> 113	   dynamically exchange the information among the autonomic nodes.
> Its
> 
> nit:
> Please explain what "enhanced" means - readers assume enhanced compared
> to RSVP, or any other prior mentioned example, but how ?
> 
> 114	   dynamic adjust ability is mainly enabled by the negotiation
ability
> 115	   defined by [RFC8990].
> 
> 117	   This mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of
network
> 
> nit:
> Generic itself is not very specific, but generic or not generic wrt. to a
specific
> network resource is even less clear. Please explain.
> 
> 118	   resources.  It can be easily extended to support network services
> 119	   deployment and management that is based on other network
> resources.
> 
> nit:
> Other "network resources" than what network resource ? Please explain in
> text.
> 
> 120	   It can be used, but no limited, in below network services
scenarios:
> 
> 122	   *  Quality transmission services.  The quality could means
> guaranteed
> 
> nit:
> Please provide a reference or explain what "quality transmission services"
> means.
> 
> 123	      bandwidth, or jitter, etc.  In order guarantee the quality of
> 124	      transmission services, the network should reserve transmission
> 125	      resource, particularly bandwidth or queues, on a selected path
> 126	      from the ingress to the egress node.  The dynamic resource
> 127	      dispatching mechanism should ensure the consistent of reserved
> 128	      resources on all the nodes in this path, particularly, when
> 129	      dynamic changes are operated on this path.
> 
> 131	   *  Difference transmission services.  The network may provide
> 
> nit:
> This probably should say "Differentiated Services" ?? If so, then please
add
> reference for DiffServ arch RFC, else explain or provide other reference
for
> what "Difference ... services" means.
> 
> 132	      different transmission services by putting the user packets
into
> 133	      different processes that have different resources, such as
> 134	      bandwidth, queue length, priority, etc.  The results would be
> 135	      different user experience in delay and jitter, or even packet
lose
> 136	      rate.
> 
> 138	   *  In network cache/storage services.  The network may provide
> cache
> 139	      or storage service by memory in the network devices or
attached
> 140	      devices.  The idle memory space is the resource that need to
be
> 141	      request and managed.  The location or distance of the memory
is
> 142	      also relevant to user experience.
> 
> nit:
> Please provide a reference for any such network cache/storage service and
any
> existing means to manage their resources. I can imagine such a thing, but
i am
> not aware of anything in the IETF context (CDNI for example does not seem
to
> be about managing resources, but rather content). Likewise "idle memory"
> space.
> It is unclear to me what even a simple example of network based memory
> resource (idle or not) would be.
> 
> 144	   *  Computing services.  More and more spare computational
> resources
> 145	      are from network providers.  They may be idle computational
> cycles
> 146	      on the network devices or deployed computational servers.  The
> 147	      occupation of these computational resources are
time-sensitive.
> 148	      Also, the location or distance of the computational resource
is
> 149	      relevant to user experience.
> 
> nit:
> Same question about providing example reference.
> 
> If there are no useful referrences, then it would help to provide a simple
> explanation of a use-case exemplifying such a service. E.g.: for memory
one
> could think of an application that needs more memory, so it tries to get
it from
> a "memory server" and consumes it via e.g.: proprietary protocols like
> RoCEv2
> (https://www.infinibandta.org/ibta-announces-new-roce-specification/)
> 
> 151	   *  Information services.  In some scenarios, network may be the
> best
> 152	      information provider.  It may be the information are from or
> 153	      generated by network itself.  Or the network has the best
> location
> 154	      to provide the information.
> 
> nit:
> reference and/or scenario.
> 
> 156	   The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994] and the Bootstrapping
> 157	   Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995] provide the
> secure
> 158	   precondition for this mechanism.
> 
> nit:
> We should always try to emphasize how the components provided by ANIMA
> can support each other but can also be used independently, e.g.:
> 
> s/provide ..."/may provide the secure precodnitions for this mechanism/.
> Nevertheless, the meachanism as presented is not dependent on them but can
> equally be combined with other security mechanisms that support mutual
> authentication between devices employing the mechanism proposed here.
> 
> 160	   This document defines an Autonomic Resource Management
> Objective in
> 161	   Section 5.  Three new corresponding registries are defined in
> 162	   Section 8.  This document defines the process of quality
transmission
> 163	   service deployment and management in Section 6.
> 
> 165	2.  Requirements Language
> 
> 167	   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
> NOT",
> 168	   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
> RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
> 169	   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
> BCP
> 170	   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
> 171	   capitals, as shown here.
> 
> 173	3.  Terminology & Abbreviations
> 
> 175	   This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
> 
> 177	   RM ASA: the Resource Manager ASA on an autonomic nodes.  It
> manages
> 178	   the local resources on the node, such as bandwidth, queue,
memory,
> 179	   priority, computational resources, etc.  The RM ASA communicate
> with
> 180	   other counterpart RM ASAs in order to dynamically dispatch
network
> 181	   resources within the autonomic network domain.  This document
> assumes
> 182	   all autonomic nodes have a RM ASA.
> 
> 184	   Service Initiator: the autonomic node that initiates and manages
a
> 185	   network service.  It requests and dynamically adjusts the
resources
> 186	   of this network service through its RM ASA.  Normally, a network
> 187	   service SHALL have one service initiator within an autonomic
network
> 188	   domain.  However, multiple Service Initiators model MAY also
> 189	   operational if there were good synchronous or coordinate
> mechanisms
> 190	   among them.
> 
> 192	   Service Responser: the autonomic node that responses to the
> requests
> 193	   from the Service Initiator.  It receives the requests through its
RM
> 194	   ASA, checks or operates on its local resources, and responds the
> 195	   results to the Service Initiator.  Typically, a network service
MAY
> 196	   involve multiple Service Responser.  The consistency among them
are
> 197	   the responsibility of the Service Initiator.
> 
> 199	4.  A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based Network
> 200	    Services
> 
> 202	   This section describes the generic procedures of autonomic
> deployment
> 203	   and management of the resource-based network services, as Figure1
> 204	   shows.  The detailed implementation or internal algorithms of the
> 205	   Resource Manager ASAs are out of scope of this document.  This
> 206	   section does not cover the specific details that depend on
certain
> 207	   network services or certain type of network resources.  The
> 208	   prepositive operation that indicates the Service Initiator to
start
> 209	   the service deployment are out of scope.  The information or
> reasons
> 210	   that trigger the dynamic service changes are also out of scope.
> 
> 212	                   |           Node Discovery           |
> 213	                   |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->|
> 214	            +-----------------+               +-----------------+
> 215	            |      RM ASA     |               |      RM ASA
> |
> 216	            |Service Initiator|               |Service Responser|
> 217	            +-----------------+ ASA Discovery +-----------------+
> 218	                   |----------------------------------->|
> 219	                   |  Authentication and Authorization  |
> 220	                   |----------------------------------->|
> 221	                   |            M_RESPONSE              |
> 222	                   |<-----------------------------------|
> 223	                   |                                    |
> 224	                   |     Multiple rounds Negotiation    |
> 225	                   |<---------------------------------->|
> 226	                   |      on Resource Availability      |
> 227	                   |                                    |
> 228	                   |               reserve the local resource
> 229	                   |                                    |
> 230	                  ...                                  ...
> 231	                   |   Coordination with other RM ASAs  |
> 232	                   |<---------------------------------->|
> 233	                  ...                                  ...
> 234	                   |           Service Ending           |
> 235	                   |<---------------------------------->|
> 236	                   |                       release resources
> 
> 238	   Figure-1: generic procedures of autonomic deployment and
> management
> 
> 240	4.1.  Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers
> 
> 242	   The Service Initiator MAY first discover the relevant network
nodes
> 243	   according to the service setup in order to reduce the node range
of
> 244	   sending GRASP Discovery message.  It may be all the nodes on a
> giving
> 245	   path or nodes that have idle resource available for giving
service
> 246	   condition, etc.  The node discover methods can be pre-configured,
> 247	   outbound discover, path detection, etc.
> 
> 249	   The Service Initiator SHOULD send out a GRASP Discovery message
> that
> 250	   contains a Resource Manager Objective option defined in Section
5, in
> 251	   which the network service is described.  The Discovery message
> SHOULD
> 252	   send to the reduced range nodes, by abovementioned mechanism, or
> all
> 253	   nodes within the AN domain.
> 
> 255	   A RM ASA that receives the Discovery message with the Resource
> 256	   Manager Objective option SHOULD check its satisfaction against
the
> 257	   service description.  If meet, the node is a proper Service
> 258	   Responser.  It SHOULD respond a GRASP Response message back to
> the
> 259	   Service Initiator.
> 
> 261	   Defined in the section 2.5.5.1 of [RFC8990], the Discovery
message
> 262	   MAY combine with the below negotiation process, if the rapid
> 263	   negotiation function has been enabled network wide.  If the rapid
> 264	   negotiation function has been disabled, the process would fall
back
> 265	   to the normal discovery-only process.
> 
> 267	4.2.  Authentication and Authorization
> 
> 269	   In principle, any operations on resources MUST be authorized.
The
> 270	   Service Responser SHOULD check the authentication of the Service
> 271	   Initiator and the authorization information for the operation it
> 272	   requests.  This document assumes all autonomic nodes within the
> AN
> 273	   domain have been authenticated and their requested operations are
> 274	   authorized, giving the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994]
and
> 275	   the Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)
> [RFC8995]
> 276	   has provided the secure environment for this mechanism.
> 
> 278	4.3.  Negotiate Resource with Service Responser
> 
> 280	   After the discovery step, the RM ASA on the Service Initiator
sends a
> 281	   GRASP Request message with a Resource Manager Objective option,
> in
> 282	   which the value of the requested resource is indicated.
> 
> 284	   When the RM ASA on a Service Responser receives a subsequent
> Request
> 285	   message, it SHOULD conduct a GRASP negotiation sequence, using
> 286	   Negotiate, Confirm Waiting, and Negotiation End messages as
> 287	   appropriate.  The Negotiate messages carry a Resource Manager
> 288	   Objective option, which will indicate the resource type and value
> 289	   offered to the requesting RM ASA.
> 
> 291	   During the negotiation, the RM ASA on the Service Responser will
> 292	   decide at each step how much resource can be offered.  That
> decision,
> 293	   and the decision to end the negotiation, are implementation
choices.
> 294	   A resource shortage on the Service Responser may cause it to
indicate
> 295	   the existing available value within a Resource Manager Objective
> 296	   option back to the Service Initiator.  The Service Initiator
might
> 297	   decide whether to accept the request of the resource.  If not,
the RM
> 298	   ASA on the Service Initiator MAY terminate the negotiation via
> 299	   Negotiation End messages.
> 
> 301	   Upon completion of the negotiation, the Service Responser
reserves
> 302	   its local resources.  The Service Initiator may use the
negotiated
> 303	   resource after receiving synchronization message without further
> 304	   messages.
> 
> 306	   Normally, a network service SHALL have one service initiator
within
> 307	   an autonomic network domain.  It is the Service Initiator's
> 308	   responsibility to manage the service and coordinate among
multiple
> 309	   Service Responsers to ensure the consistent of reserved
resources.
> 
> 311	4.4.  Change Reserved Resources
> 
> 313	   After the process of automatic resource management mechanism, RM
> ASAs
> 314	   are allowed to change and negotiate the resource requirements.
In
> 315	   the lifetime of network services, there may be many reasons that
the
> 316	   service has to be changed upon with its reserved resources.
> Resource
> 317	   Manager ASA needs to be able to handle resource changes in a
timely
> 318	   manner to meet service requirements.
> 
> 320	   During the renegotiation process, RM ASA on the Service Initiator
> 321	   resends the service's resource requirements by using Resource
> Manager
> 322	   GRASP Objective.  RM ASA on the Service Responser receives the
> 323	   resource negotiation message and makes the determination.  If the
> 324	   resource requirements are lower than those allocated or/and less
> 325	   lifetime than previous, the Service Responser SHOULD directly
confirm
> 326	   the information and release the excess resources.  If more
resources
> 327	   or lifetime are required, RM ASA on the Service Responser SHOULD
> 328	   treat it as a brand-new request and make decision or further
> 329	   negotiation.  The bottom line is the Service Responser MUST allow
> the
> 330	   Service Initiator fall back to previous allocated resource, both
on
> 331	   volume and lifetime.
> 
> 333	   RM ASAs on the Service Responsers MUST NOT change existing
> resource
> 334	   allocation until the new negotiation on resource changes is
complete.
> 
> 336	4.5.  Releasing Resources during Service Ending
> 
> 338	   After the service is completed or expired, the reserved network
> 339	   resources MUST be released so that network resources can be used
> more
> 340	   efficiently.  If the service lifetime expires, the Service
Responser
> 341	   MUST release its local resources and MAY send a Synchronization
> 342	   message to the Service Initiator to notify the state change of
its
> 343	   local resources.  If the Service Initiator wants to end the
service
> 344	   before the service lifetime expires, the Service Initiator MUST
send
> 345	   a negotiation message to the Service Responsers to request the
> 346	   network resource to be changed to zero.  Upon completion of the
> 347	   negotiation, the Service Responser releases the resources
occupied by
> 348	   the service.
> 
> 350	5.  Autonomic Resource Management Objectives
> 
> 352	   This section defines the GRASP technical objective options that
are
> 353	   used to support autonomic resource management.  Resource
> Manager
> 354	   GRASP Objective allows multiple types of resources to be
requested
> 355	   simultaneously.
> 
> 357	   The Resource Manager Objective option is a GRASP Objective option
> 358	   conforming to the GRASP specification [RFC8990].  Its name is
> 359	   "Resource Manager", and it carries the following data items as
its
> 360	   value: the resource value.  Since GRASP is based on CBOR (Concise
> 361	   Binary Object Representation) [RFC8949], the format of the
Resource
> 362	   Manager Objective option is described in the Concise Data
Definition
> 363	   Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] as follows:
> 
> 365	   objective = ["Resource Manager", objective-flags, loop-count,
> 366	   ?objective-value]
> 
> 368	   objective-name = "Resource Manager"
> 
> 370	   objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag ; as in the GRASP
> 371	   specification
> 
> 373	   loop-count = 0..255 ; as in the GRASP specification
> 374	   The 'objective-value' field expresses the actual value of a
> 375	   negotiation or synchronization objective.  So a new
objective-value
> 376	   named autonomic-network-service-value is defined for Network
> Service
> 377	   Auto-deployment as follows.  The autonomic node can know that it
> is
> 378	   serving Network Service Auto-deployment according to the
objective-
> 379	   value after receiving the GRASP message.  The 'objective value'
> 380	   contains two parts, one represents the information of the service
> 381	   itself, and the other represents the requirements of resources.
> 
> 383	   objective-value = autonomic-network-service-value; An autonomic-
> 384	   network-service-value is defined as Figure-2.
> 
> 386	    autonomic-network-service-value =
> 387	        [
> 388	         [
> 389	          service-type,
> 390	          service-id,
> 391	          service-lifetime,
> 392	          service-tag
> 393	          ],[
> 394	          *resource-requirement-pair
> 395	         ]
> 396	        ]
> 
> 398	   Figure-2: Format of autonomic-network-service-value-value
> 
> 400	   service-type = 0..7
> 
> 402	   service-id = uint
> 
> 404	   service-lifetime = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
> 
> 406	   service-tag = [ *service-tag-info]
> 
> 408	   The combination service-type and the service-id MUST uniquely
> 409	   represent a network service within the network.  The uniqueness
of
> 410	   the combination service-type and the service-id SHOULD be
> guaranteed
> 411	   by an allocation mechanism that is out of scope of this document.
> 
> 413	   The allocation of resources MUST specify the lifetime.  The
service-
> 414	   lifetime represents the usage time of the resources required by
the
> 415	   service.
> 
> 417	   The service-tag contains other information that describes the
> 418	   service.  This information is not necessary, but will affect the
> 419	   policy for RM ASA resource reservation.
> 
> 421	   The resource-requirement-pair describes the resource requirements
> and
> 422	   it is defined as Figure-3.  Resource requirements of different
types
> 423	   can be described in an objective option.  The Resource Manager
> 424	   objective option supports multi-faceted resource requirements and
> 425	   negotiation.  These resource requirements are all in pairs,
described
> 426	   by resource type and resource value.
> 
> 428	   resource-requirement-pair =
> 429	        [
> 430	         resource-type,
> 431	         resource-value
> 432	        ]
> 
> 434	   Figure-3: Format of resource-requirement-pair
> 
> 436	   resource-type = 0..7
> 
> 438	   resource-value = uint
> 
> 440	6.  Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service
> Auto-deployment
> 
> 442	6.1.  Quality Transmission Service Scenario & Service Type
> 
> 444	   The quality transmission service scenario is the most important
> 445	   resource negotiation scenario.  In this scenario, RM ASAs
negotiate
> 446	   the resource that will affect the transmission quality.  The
basic
> 447	   resource is bandwidth and other types of resources such as queue
can
> 448	   be required at the same time.
> 
> 450	   The autonomic deployment and management of the quality
> transmission
> 451	   service includes the Service Initiator and the Service Responsers
all
> 452	   have RM ASA.  The Service Initiator is the resource demander,
which
> 453	   ensures the connection of services through negotiation resources
with
> 454	   RM ASAs in the domain network.  Service Responsers are the nodes
> 455	   which packets are forwarded in the transmission scenario and
Service
> 456	   Initiator asks resource from them.  These nodes can be discovered
> 457	   through RM ASA discovery process or path discovery methods.
> 
> 459	                Negotiation Resource
> 460	    +-------------------------------------------------------------+
> 461	    |       Negotiation Resource
> |
> 462	    | +--------------------------------------------+              |
> 463	    | |                                            |
> |
> 464	 +--------+ Negotiation Resource +---------+   +---------+
+---------+
> 465	 | RM ASA |<-------------------->|  RM ASA |   |  RM ASA |   | RM
> ASA  |
> 466	 +--------+                      +---------+   +---------+
+---------+
> 467	 |  SI    | -------------------->| SR Node |-->| SR Node |-->| SR
Node |
> 468	 +--------+   Transmit data      +---------+   +---------+
+---------+
> 469	   Figure-3 shows how RM ASAs negotiate resources and how Service
> 470	   Initiator forwards packages.  The RM ASA on the Service Initiator
> 471	   negotiates resources with the RM ASAs on the Service Responsers
one
> 472	   by one.
> 
> 474	   Figure-3: Negotiation procedure of a transmission service
> 
> 476	6.2.  Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service
Responser
> 
> 478	   In the process of negotiation, Service Initiator negotiates
resources
> 479	   with Service Responsers and ensures resources enough.  RM ASAs
> are
> 480	   allowed to negotiate resources for multiple rounds.  It often
happens
> 481	   that the network resources on one node cannot meet the resources
> 482	   required by the service, but the service is willing to reduce its
> 483	   resource requirements to ensure the successful deployment of the
> 484	   service.  The RM ASAs on the Service Responsers feedback the
> maximum
> 485	   available resources using Resource Management Objectives in the
> 486	   response message.  The RM ASA on the Service Initiator changes
the
> 487	   resource requirements according to the specific requirements of
the
> 488	   received resources and services, to carry out the next round of
> 489	   service negotiation.
> 
> 491	    +----------+                                   +---------+
> 492	    |  RM ASA  |                                   | RM ASA
> |
> 493	    +----------+                                   +---------+
> 494	    |    SI    |                                   | SR Node |
> 495	    +----------+ [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]]    +---------+
> 496	         |------------------------------------------->|
> 497	         |      [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]]         |
> 498	         |<-------------------------------------------|
> 499	         |      [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]]         |
> 500	         |------------------------------------------->|
> 501	         |          Negotiation End (ACCEPT)          |
> 502	         |<-------------------------------------------|
> 
> 504	   Figure-4 shows an example of a negotiation process.  In the first
> 505	   negotiation round, RM ASA on the Service Initiator wants to get
> 506	   resource from RM ASA on the Service Responsers.  In this example,
> the
> 507	   service type is Transmission Service and service-id is 36732.
The
> 508	   service will last 3600 seconds and only ask for one kind of
resource
> 509	   10 Mbit/s bandwidth.  So, the autonomic-network-service-value is
> 510	   [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]].
> 
> 512	   Figure-4: an example of a negotiation process
> 
> 514	   When RM ASA on the Service Responser Node receives the message,
> if
> 515	   the RM ASA thinks the network can offer this required resource,
it
> 516	   will response the ACCEPT.  But if it does not meet the request,
it
> 517	   will give how much resource it can offer.  In this example, the
> 518	   Service Responser can offer 8 Mbit/s.  The next step, RM ASA on
the
> 519	   Service Initiator needs to decide whether to change its resource
> 520	   requirements according to the reply, and sends a next round
> 521	   negotiation.  Then, RM ASA on the Service Responser finds the new
> 522	   resource requirement, it can meet.  So, it will response ACCEPT.
> 523	   This is an example how ASAs negotiate resources.
> 
> 525	6.3.  Coordination among Multiple Service Responsers
> 
> 527	   The Service Initiator decides a coordinated value of resource and
> 528	   negotiates with multiple Service Responsers that need to reduce
the
> 529	   locked resource.  The Service Responsers reserve resources for
> 530	   service according to the negotiation results.  If the operation
is
> 531	   successful, the Service Responser reply success message to the
> 532	   Service Initiator.  If it fails, reply failure message to the
Service
> 533	   Initiator.  And the Service Initiator will restart negotiation
step.
> 
> 535	   When the Service Initiator receives the success message from all
the
> 536	   Service Responsers, the service can start to transmit the
message.
> 
> 538	6.4.  Service Ending
> 
> 540	   When the service is ended, it is the responsibility of Service
> 541	   Initiator to release all reserved resources through the dialogue
with
> 542	   the RM ASA on the Service Responser.  And if the service lifetime
is
> 543	   exceeded, the Service Initiator SHOULD also release reserved
resource
> 544	   although the Service Responsers may release the reserved resource
by
> 545	   themselves.
> 
> 547	7.  Security Considerations
> 
> 549	   It complies with GRASP security considerations.  Relevant
security
> 550	   issues are discussed in [RFC8990].  The preferred security model
is
> 551	   that devices are trusted following the secure bootstrap procedure
> 552	   [RFC8995] and that a secure Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)
[RFC8994]
> 553	   is in place.
> 
> 555	8.  IANA Considerations
> 
> 557	   This document defines a new GRASP Objective option names:
> "Resource
> 558	   Manager" which need to be added to the "GRASP Objective Names"
> 559	   registry defined by [RFC8990].  And this document defines a new
> 560	   registry tables "service-type" and "resource-type" under the
> 561	   "Resource Manager" GRASP Objective.  The following subsections
> 562	   describe the new parameters.
> 
> 564	8.1.  Service type
> 
> 566	   IANA has set up the "service-type" registry, which contains 4-bit
> 567	   value.  The service-type defines the type of service which is
used to
> 568	   describe the type of resource requirements.
> 
> 570	   *  0 : Transmission Service
> 
> 572	   *  1 : Computing Service
> 
> 574	8.2.  Resource Type
> 
> 576	   IANA has set up the "resource-type" registry, which contains
4-bit
> 577	   value.
> 
> 579	   *  0 : bandwidth
> 
> 581	   *  1 : queue
> 
> 583	   *  2 : memery
> 
> 585	   *  3 : priority
> 
> 587	   *  4 : cache
> 
> 589	   *  5 : computing
> 
> 591	9.  Acknowledgements
> 
> 593	   Valuable comments were received from Michael Richardson and Brian
> 594	   Carpenter.  Contributions to early versions of this document was
> made
> 595	   by Yujing Zhou.
> 
> 597	10.  References
> 
> 599	10.1.  Normative References
> 
> 601	   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
> 602	              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
> 603	              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
> 604	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
> 
> 606	   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
and S.
> 607	              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version
> 1
> 608	              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI
> 10.17487/RFC2205,
> 609	              September 1997,
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
> 
> 611	   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
> 612	              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI
> 10.17487/RFC8174,
> 613	              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
> 
> 615	   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise
Data
> 616	              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
> 617	              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
> and
> 618	              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI
> 10.17487/RFC8610,
> 619	              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
> 
> 621	   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
> 622	              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
> 623	              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
> 624	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
> 
> 626	   [RFC8990]  Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Liu, Ed.,
"GeneRic
> 627	              Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", RFC 8990,
> 628	              DOI 10.17487/RFC8990, May 2021,
> 629	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8990>.
> 
> 631	   [RFC8994]  Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason,
"An
> 632	              Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
> 633	              DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
> 634	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
> 
> 636	   [RFC8995]  Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer,
M.,
> 637	              and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
> 638	              Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI
> 10.17487/RFC8995,
> 639	              May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.
> 
> 641	10.2.  Informative References
> 
> 643	   [RFC7575]  Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
> 644	              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
> 645	              Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
> 646	              DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
> 647	              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
> 
> 649	Authors' Addresses
> 
> 651	   Sheng Jiang (editor)
> 652	   Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
> 653	   No. 10 Xitucheng Road
> 654	   Beijing
> 655	   Haidian District, 100083
> 656	   China
> 657	   Email: shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn
> 658	   Joanna Dang
> 659	   Huawei
> 660	   No.156 Beiqing Road
> 661	   Beijing
> 662	   P.R. China, 100095
> 663	   China
> 664	   Email: dangjuanna@huawei.com
> 
> 666	   Zongpeng Du
> 667	   China Mobile
> 668	   32 Xuanwumen West Street
> 669	   Beijing
> 670	   P.R. China, 100053
> 671	   China
> 672	   Email: duzongpeng@chinamobile.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima