Re: [Anima] What is intent ?

Hi, Toerless, Brian & Jeferson,

Please see my replies in line with quotas from you.

Toerless> 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.

I prefer such distinguish definitions. Intent itself does not have a clear definition. It does not a clear role in Autonomic network either. This word has been abused a lot. If we cannot reach consensus on its semantics. It may be wise to give up it and choose more precise terminologies.

Toerless>I think that draft-du-anima-an-intent would equally
> apply to all information we would want to distribute into an autonomic
> network.
Jeferson>I believe this could be addressed in draft-du-anima-an-intent.

As a co-author of this draft, I also think we have a very good base already. However, we may need to rename the document in order to avoid the too-hot term "intent".

Brian>we could spend another 6 months discussing how to know Intent when we see it. But I would prefer that to happen in NMRG.
Jeferson>I agree with Brian, the intent "philosophical" discussion fits better the NMRG.

This suggestion is actually very pragmatic. Let's focus on these concrete and generic solutions first.

Regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:anima-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:05 AM
> To: Toerless Eckert; anima@ietf.org
> 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.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> 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@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima