[Ibnemo] role based intent

Zhoutianran <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD581B35A0 for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RG4E4pJm80uh for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C55E1B359E for <ibnemo@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BWW36172; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:29:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:29:52 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.152]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:29:45 +0800
From: Zhoutianran <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Dave Hood <dave.hood@ericsson.com>, STUART VENTERS <stuart.venters@adtran.com>, "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org>
Thread-Topic: role based intent
Thread-Index: AdCdxq4VFvGDpUDvRK6YJXpiQnECmw==
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 06:29:45 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F2166BBFAC2@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.21]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F2166BBFAC2nkgeml512mbxchi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ibnemo/Le_9RDUmAkEvWbLTJ0c5HFDoWYk>
Cc: "sdn@irtf.org" <sdn@irtf.org>, "ibnemo@ietf.org" <ibnemo@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ibnemo] role based intent
X-BeenThere: ibnemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of Nemo, an intent-based North Bound \(NB\) interface consisting of an application protocol running over HTTP \(RESTful interfaces\) to exchange intent-based primitives between applications and meta-controllers controlling virtual network resources \(networks, storage, CPU\)." <ibnemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ibnemo/>
List-Help: <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:29:57 -0000

Hi Dave, Stuart, Bob and all,



I found many problems raised in the mailing list are coursed by the layered intent thinking. Maybe we are tainted by the ISO model:-)



For the layered intent, intent is a spectrum, very abstract at the top layer, more network specific and less abstract when the layer goes down. The problem is that the boundary of intent and non intent is vague. Or there is no boundary between this two, since one's what may be another one's how. And consequently, it looks like everything is intent and no clear intent definition.



The role based intent will provide only one intent layer. That is always the top layer abstraction for each role, as shown in the following figure. The functions can be layered as the implementation of the intent layer.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D09E09.BC337E90]

With the role based intent, although the end user's intent is much abstracted then the network administrator's intent, they are not related each other. I.e., the end user will not use the administrator's intent. And the admin will not provide additional services/interfaces to the end user.



The essential of layering is that the lower layer will provide interface to the higher layer. In order to fit up layer requirements, the lower layer will provide adequate interfaces/capabilities. That also means too much information for a dedicated up layer user/app.



For role based intent, we can firstly indentify various roles (no need to be complete, but those with attention), and then figure out the intent of each role. In this way, intent can be clear defined. That will also keep the intent of each role to a small set on what they really cares about, without expending to support other one's intent.





Best Regards,

Terence