Re: [Anima] Not the Intents we were looking for: SUPA Intents

On 19/08/2015 07:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> {intentionally not cross-posted to SUPA}
> 
> While working on other things today (and being at home with a pink-eyed kid),
> I found the tab that was open to watch the IETF93 SUPA BOF.

I didn't do that, but having looked at the SUPA minutes, I then looked
at the IBNEMO documents, which make more sense to me than SUPA.
However, both IBNEMO and SUPA are definitely in the top/down north/south
configuration management tradition.

> I also had saved ~80 emails from the SUPA list to read.
> I found that the use cases from the SUPA BOF do not really match how we
> envision Intents to work with ANIMA ASAs.  In particular, the model that
> is envisioned is far more SDN-like; that is with a uber-intelligent
> centralized command and control system that interprets SUPA Intents into
> things like Virtual Private Cloud (VPC/VPN) configurations, via various
> things like YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF models, (but probably other data models)
> 
> It isn't clear to me if SUPA Intents are going to be designed to cross-AS
> boundaries, but it seems like they could easily do this.
> 
> It seems like the ANIMA ACP is critically important for SUPA to be able to
> implement policies, but that's an operator convenience.  They could equally
> well use other (more expensive!) management networks.
> 
> In the recording, I heard various things about ANIMA... I don't think
> anyone overstated the situation, but I think that the message that ANIMA
> Intents != SUPA Intents was too understated.

Agreed, judging by the documents. Anyway it seems clear that SUPA is
not yet ready to get chartered.

> Bert Wijnen (didn't he declare he was retired?) 

Well yes, but as I told him when he said that, retirement often
doesn't work first time ;-).

> points on the list to
>      IBNEMO - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo
> 
> There was a SUPA telecon yesterday morning, but I had a nomcom call,
> so I missed it.  It seems that there ought to be significant overlap,
> and yet I don't see it.

I don't see much overlap with SUPA.

If IBNEMO comes up with a good data model and syntax for expressing
intent, we should consider using it. I guess one of the authors of
draft-zhou-netmod-intent-nemo and draft-xia-sdnrg-nemo-language
can advise us about that. But actually the Nemo intent language looks
more specific than I expect Anima intent to be: compare with
draft-du-anima-an-intent and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-anima-prefix-management-01#section-5.1

    Brian