Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 July 2016 14:16
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) <mbehring@cisco.com>; Laurent Ciavaglia
> <Laurent.Ciavaglia@nokia-bell-labs.com>; anima <anima@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-
> intent-04.txt
> 
> On 11/07/2016 19:22, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anima [mailto:anima-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
> >> Carpenter
> >> Sent: 09 July 2016 12:39
> >> To: Laurent Ciavaglia <Laurent.Ciavaglia@nokia-bell-labs.com>; anima
> >> <anima@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Anima] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> >> draft-du-anima-an- intent-04.txt
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for this. One point raises some questions in my mind:
> >>
> >>> 5.   Intent splitting (on each node): Intent is split into sections,
> >>> one for the ANI itself, others for specific Autonomic Functions.
> >>> ASAs are notified if there is new Intent for them.  Some intent
> >>> sections may not apply to a particular node.  Now each component of
> >>> a node (ANI, all ASAs) know their respective Intent.
> >>
> >> I am wondering why, in this case, Intent would be broadcasted in a
> >> single operation as a single file. Why wouldn't we simply send out
> >> each section separately?
> >
> > Simplicity. We've discussed many ways of making Intent distribution more
> granular, optimised, etc. My argument was and is: Let's start simple, and see
> whether we actually need to make it more granular, optimised, etc. If Intent
> is really a high level policy, it will change very infrequently, so I think
> optimisations are not required. Having said this, we should have a "plan b" in
> case we find later that the simple method isn't good enough.
> 
> I'm all for simplicity. However, it might be that sending the sections
> separately would actually be simpler. I think we don't know yet.

I doubt that, but let's leave our mind open! :-) 

> >> Also, how is the relevance for each ASA known?
> >
> > My proposal: Intent comes in sections; those sections are labelled with the
> name of the ASA / autonomic function they belong to. Also here, there are
> many ways to do this, it's a simple proposal which could be optimised in many
> ways.
> >
> >> And is that the correct
> >> granularity of the section? Maybe the granularity should be
> >> individual objectives, or certain groups of objectives? I think this
> >> needs more discussion.
> >
> > On this one I agree!! We should have more discussions on that. Your point
> from the other mail, that we should try implementing some ASAs would help
> understand this better.
> 
> Yes. There's been an assumption, I think, that one "autonomic function" ==
> one ASA.
> We need to be clear if that is an axiom, and we need to think about how
> ASAs are named, and if those names need to be registered somehow.

Yes, that misunderstanding keeps popping up all the time.  I think RFC7575 is quite clear: 

   Autonomic Function: A feature or function that requires no
   configuration and can derive all required information through self-
   knowledge, discovery, or Intent.

   Autonomic Service Agent: An agent implemented on an autonomic node
   that implements an autonomic function, either in part (in the case of
   a distributed function) or whole.

Example: There is the "autonomic function" "bootstrapping of new nodes". It consists of 3 different ASAs: The new_device ASA, the proxy ASA and the registrar ASA. 

How can we make that clearer? (I thought RFC7575 *is* clear).

> > But: I suggest we make things more complicated only if we really can see
> why the proposed approach wouldn't work.
> 
> Agreed. As far as I can see, if we naively assume that we use GRASP to
> distribute Intent, we can flood Intent as long as it fits in one packet; if that
> doesn't apply, we can synchronize it via GRASP/TCP. That seems OK for now.
> Since Intent is supposed to change rarely, we don't need to optimise
> performance.

Yes, we need to settle on that. As mentioned, I suggest we keep the signalling "there is Intent version x" and the actual transfer strictly separate. That's really an orthogonal observation to yours, but I'd really hope we can settle on that. 

Michael

> Regards
>     Brian
> 
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>    Brian
> >>
> >> On 09/07/2016 03:45, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
> >>> Dear ANIMA WG,
> >>>
> >>> FYI: a new version of the I-D has been posted.
> >>>
> >>> The main update is the addition of a section on Intent Life Cycle
> >>> based on the initial text provided by Michael Behringer
> >> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/rk2CgO62nmXFuKOBX-
> >> Gtb5v0p5E).
> >>> Michael is now also co-author of the I-D.
> >>>
> >>> *We've asked the ANIMA WG chairs for a slot at IETF96/Berlin to
> >>> present the updates on this draft and report on the discussion on
> >>> Intent and way forward.** **Your comments are thus highly welcome
> >>> before the meet**ing**.*
> >>>
> >>> Best regards, Laurent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>> Subject:     New Version Notification for draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt
> >>> Date:     Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:39:49 -0700
> >>> From:     internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >>> To:     Laurent Ciavaglia <laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com>, Jeferson
> >> Campos Nobre <jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br>, Michael
> >>> Behringer <mbehring@cisco.com>, Sheng Jiang
> >> <jiangsheng@huawei.com>,
> >>> Zongpeng Du <duzongpeng@huawei.com>, Michael H. Behringer
> >>> <mbehring@cisco.com>, Laurent Ciavaglia
> >>> <Laurent.Ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-du-anima-an-intent-04.txt has been
> >>> successfully submitted by Laurent Ciavaglia and posted to the IETF
> >>> repository.
> >>>
> >>> Name:        draft-du-anima-an-intent
> >>> Revision:    04
> >>> Title:        ANIMA Intent Policy and Format
> >>> Document date:    2016-07-08
> >>> Group:        Individual Submission
> >>> Pages:        13
> >>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-du-anima-an-
> intent-
> >> 04.txt
> >>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-du-anima-an-intent/
> >>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-du-anima-an-intent-04
> >>> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-du-anima-an-intent-
> 04
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>>    One of the goals of autonomic networking is to simplify the
> >>>    management of networks by human operators.  Intent Based
> Networking
> >>>    (IBN) is a possible approach to realize this goal.  With IBN, the
> >>>    operator indicates to the network what to do (i.e. her intent) and
> >>>    not how to do it.  In the field of Policy Based Management (PBM), the
> >>>    concept of intent is called a declarative policy.  This document
> >>>    proposes a refinement of the intent concept initially defined in
> >>>    [RFC7575] for autonomic networks by providing a more complete
> >>>    definition, a life-cycle, some use cases and a tentative format of
> >>>    the ANIMA Intent Policy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> >>>
> >>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Anima mailing list
> >>> Anima@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Anima mailing list
> >> Anima@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >