Re: [Anima] What is intent ?

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 26 July 2017 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1698D131FED for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.503
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBgp3xEqcjiI for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB46B131FEF for <>; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 03:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4018; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501066578; x=1502276178; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=5iVhE6aVDtHswstAUk5uXXQnJ3SEQ6rJOdt1jvwaipE=; b=aO2t3cvy9+K822hfD2OWbd00EMaHY57hAlwJlMOJWj9qPUV7yjebQDtA mGYGs5qt0M4JVJzhkIrTigCSjXBvowbc7fwMqFuoxwHicx1fZLhPgbCpg DMQ5Q6rKjP4ZObe2btZ02HnPEXBtYD+xnLfZM38TwoXPQXBG0MWUlNkmw A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,414,1496102400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="696075073"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jul 2017 10:56:13 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6QAuDDx031450; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:56:13 GMT
To: Toerless Eckert <>,,
References: <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:56:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vUJAuc5IGEW1haqP6begkt87ap4FoixBD"
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 10:56:23 -0000

Hi Toerless,

I've heard MUD called a form of intent, but it's not a perfect fit.  MUD
expresses needs rather than intent.  That is- "I need the network to
allow X."  One could *infer* an intent, but but such inferences get
riskier the higher up the stack one goes.  In your case, though, one
could extend the MUD file to describe the need for a VPN, so long as the
parameters of that VPN are well understood in the terms of the MUD
abstractions at the time of manufacturer ("my-controller",
"same-manufacturer", etc).

As a formalism between ANIs, MUD is not the droid you're looking for, as
currently scoped.


On 7/25/17 10:34 PM, 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