Re: [Idnet] Intelligence-Defined Network Architecture and Call for Interests

Sheng Jiang <> Thu, 30 March 2017 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B8E126C26 for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S16E7myFpVbI for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09BF1294FB for <>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DJZ07343; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:41:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:41:47 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:41:40 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <>
To: David Meyer <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idnet] Intelligence-Defined Network Architecture and Call for Interests
Thread-Index: AQHSp96NotmNK6LAE0GQptHszQd4taGqBEgAgAAAmQCAA20JNA==
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CD16EE8NKGEML515MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.58DD192D.002F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b03537fe13089659dc877e9f8409ba26
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idnet] Intelligence-Defined Network Architecture and Call for Interests
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The IDNet \(Intelligence-Defined Network\) " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:41:57 -0000

Hi, David,

I think I agree with you, but in slight different  expression. Yes, the hard parts of getting ML into Network lies on machine learning. But, it is not that we need to develop any new ML technical/algorithms for networking in particular. It is that we MUST re-set up our network domain knowledge from the perspective of applying ML. My slides [0] does not suggest that *someone else* will handle the ML part. Actually, oppositely, it suggests some experts who have knowledge of both ML and network (probably we) would develop tools/algorithms/systems to handle the ML part for other network experts (more than 98 percent of current network administrators). So that, these network experts would be allowed to manage their network easily with intelligence association, but no need to become ML experts themselves. Here, we would like to treat the network administrators like the users in other successful ML application. We are the domian experts to do the dirty AI work for them.

I believe we have common understanding in the above description. But certainly my slides needs further refine to clarify my viewpoint.

Best regards,

From: IDNET [] on behalf of David Meyer []
Sent: 29 March 2017 2:01
To: Sheng Jiang
Subject: Re: [Idnet] Intelligence-Defined Network Architecture and Call for Interests

s/NMRL/NMLRG/   (sorry about that). Dave

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:59 AM, David Meyer <<>> wrote:
Hey Sheng,

I just wanted to revive my key concern on [0] (same one I made at the NMRL): The hard parts of getting Machine Learning intelligence into Networking is the Machine Learning part. In addition, successful deployment of ML requires knowledge of ML combined with domain knowledge. We definitely have the domain knowledge; the problem is that we don't have the ML knowledge, and this is one of the big factors holding us back; see e.g. Andrew's discussion of talent in [1].  Slides such as [0] seem to imply that *someone else* (in particular, not us)  will handle the ML part of all of this. I'll just note that in general successful deployments of ML don't work this way; the domain experts will have to learn ML (and vice versa) for us to be successful (again, see [1] and many others).

Perhaps a useful exercise would be to write an ID that makes your assumptions explicit?




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Sheng Jiang <<>> wrote:
Hi, all,

Although there are many understanding for Intelligence-Defined Network, we are actually using this IDN as a term reference to the SDN-beyond architecture that we presented in IETF97, see the below link. A reference model is presented in page 3, while potential standardization works is presented in page 9.

Although it might be a little bit too early for AI/ML in network giving the recent story of the concluded proposed NMLRG, we still would like to call for interests in IDN. Anybody (on site in Chicago this week) are interested in this or even wider topics regarding to AI/ML in network, please contact me on<> . Then we may have an informal meeting to discuss some common interests and potential future activities (not any activities in IETF, but also other STO or experimental trails, etc.)  on Thursday morning.

FYI, we have already working on a Work Item, called IDN in the ETSI NGP (Next Generation Protocol) ISG, links below.

Meanwhile, please do use this mail list as a forum to discuss any topics that may applying AI/ML into network area.

Best regards,

IDNET mailing list<>