Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 11:47 UTC
Return-Path: <olga.havel@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC977120811; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 03:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZAj_gUleGqN6; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 03:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCC6C120288; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 03:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A8F0A9056B5576E1D398; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:47:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:47:44 +0000
Received: from fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.55) by fraeml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:47:43 +0100
Received: from fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.112.184]) by fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.112.184]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:47:43 +0100
From: Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com>
To: "El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib)" <y.elkhatib@lancaster.ac.uk>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
CC: "nmrg-chairs@irtf.org" <nmrg-chairs@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
Thread-Index: AQHVq5tE0BjzpeVdEk6W6/xdhk/Soaes4r7Q
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 11:47:43 +0000
Message-ID: <265015a9284247ceb34eb658b3d84a79@huawei.com>
References: <4D295A81-235F-4E14-84C1-31DDAC1A7BF8@lancaster.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4D295A81-235F-4E14-84C1-31DDAC1A7BF8@lancaster.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.206.138.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/18G2kLLiuEC0xJKTOYZG6pO2VD8>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 11:47:51 -0000
Hi Yehia, Thanks you very much for your comments and it is great that you made contact with the group. Thanks you very much for sharing your papers, . The draft deals with different types of intents based on different solutions and different users of the network (intent users), and its scope is intents for both current and future networks. And application developer is one of the users we identified. There are some that would agree with you that intents are only for applications, and policies for operators and administrators. But there are others who are talking about - intents of administrators and operators in regards to operating network and network services - intents of end-users in regards to self-service Therefore, we tried to capture all these, fully aware that it is a superset and that different stakeholders may only find subsets relevant in their research, applications and solutions. Also, some of the operator and administrator intents may disappear with autonomous networking. But currently, these are still requirements we get from the industry and we added intent types and categories for any human interaction, as any interaction should be driven by intent of the human user (app developers for applications, operators, administrators, subscribers, end-users). I absolutely agree with you that there is confusion between policies and intents. But we wanted this draft to propose some categories of intents that could be understood by the wider audience and driven by intent user requirements, and not only targeted to those that are familiar with policy continuum, imperative/goal/declarative policies. Also, draft draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03 addresses the difference between policies, services and intents. draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03 can also be used for intent definition and our draft can be used for classification only. We do, nevertheless propose to include policies into strategy intents. In the future versions, strategy intents can only include policies as models, workflows & scripts may disappear in autonomous networks. But currently we do sometimes have models, workflows, scripts as parts of these strategy intents, that either operators/administrators or DevOps need to create during the design-time. Examples : NS and VNF descriptors, service/resource templates/definitions, models, DevOps scripts, policies. In regards to preferences, priorities and ways the network can help, I agree intent should be able to formulate all or some of them. Do you think this belongs to the classification draft or should we leave it when we start defining interfaces, DSLs and models and how we formulate network intents? Best Regards, Olga -----Original Message----- From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib) Sent: Thursday 5 December 2019 18:39 To: nmrg@irtf.org Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org Subject: Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02 Hello all, Long time listener, first time caller! I feel compelled to chip in as someone who's worked on intents for a few years now. The definitions in the draft are not entirely helpful in terms of clarifying the difference between intents and policies, which is the main point of confusion I observed from working and publishing** in this area. To me, an intent is for an application (that 'intends' to do something) whereas a policy is for an operator (a policy of how to run things). An intent cannot be everything for everyone, as this will not be feasible to work with. As such, the way an intent is defined needs to enable the application developer to indicate their: (1) preference; (2) priorities; and (3) ways the network can help. I fail to see how these could be specified using this draft. Just my 2 cents and glad to finally make contact with the group. __ ** See papers: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/~elkhatib/papers/elkhatib2017idn.pdf http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/~elkhatib/papers/elhabbash2018mediation.pdf /yehia -- Dr. Yehia Elkhatib PhD Admissions Officer & Distributed Systems Group Lead School of Computing & Communications Lancaster University, LA1 4WA, UK y.elkhatib /then add/ lancaster.ac.uk http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/~elkhatib On 06/12/2019, 7:15 am, "nmrg on behalf of Branislav Meandzija" <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of bran@metacomm.com> wrote: This email originated from outside of the University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. While I have followed some of the various discussions here over the past decades, I am not sure whether my 2 cents on this subject is appropriate or not. However, I have done quite a bit of research, system design and implementation synonymous with "intent" intent over this period of time and feel compelled to comment. My perspective is that intent is application/domain specific and can only be abstracted from a knowledgebase specific to that application/domain. This abstraction should be formal and not fluff. As such, I feel this document just further muddies the waters with unnecessary and arbitrary new definitions and I would not promote it further. Branislav -----Original Message----- From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:58 PM To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr> Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org; nmrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02 Importance: Low I would like to add that the extremely brief section on the Policy Continuum in the draft seems superfluous in light of its brevity and consequent over-simplification. (If John Strassner feels otherwise, then please ignore my comments here!) While the existing text is a reasonable facsimile of early descriptions of the Policy Continuum, as thought developed the concept matured: E.g., "The Policy Continuum - Policy authoring and conflict analysis" (2008), https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrendanjennings.net%2Fpapers%2F2008_COMCOM_SDavy_et_al_published.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168487059&sdata=zjSiVlt1Ej1ZH%2FNiBBehVQG281%2FzFrwQTJ3ZDtSi5BQ%3D&reserved=0, esp. sec. 2.1.4, but most of the rest of the paper is essential to a useful level of understanding. Alas, at some point the Policy Continuum concept seems to have fallen relatively dormant. Regardless, wrt the discussion topic at hand, I believe that several points must be considered: - Non-person entity "actors" as policy authors will be essential to translation of policy expressions in the Intent-based operating model. - It is (and always has been) the translation of policies across levels. The translation activity is what makes the model a continuum as opposed to (only) a set of interworking differentiated layers. - Applying Intent-based policy expression adds a distinct dimension to operation of the Policy Continuum ... this new dimension is compatible with existing common understanding of the Policy Continuum but introduces additional translations at some layers. So, I think it's necessary to cover the Policy Continuum (by whatever name might be preferable today, if that term is out of vogue) in an explanation of Intent-based policy implementation. I am not sure it belongs in a document defining Intent classification. And it almost certainly does not fit into this particular draft in its present form. I do see the connection you are presumably making with your Intent User and Intent Type breakouts and the Policy Continuum but (to coin a phrase?) it's "too little too early" to add any real value. FWIW (from a lurker), BobN -----Original Message----- From: nmrg <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 4:25 PM To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr> Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org; nmrg@irtf.org Subject: [EXT] Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02 I am still not sure what the value of this document is. What is the insight that these big tables deliver? How do they help doing ultimately better work in the IETF? I am sure I will get some answer quickly from the authors but what I am saying is that I prefer to see the value of this document very clearly explained in the document before adopting it. Note that I also expect that this document would align with the other document defining intent concepts and terminology. Perhaps this is more intended like a survey paper but then it has gone a bit in the wrong direction since a decent survey would explain how intent is defined and used in concrete projects (hint: lots of concrete descriptions and references) and then you would classify things. But right now, we have big tables with empty cells or cells with text that seems to come from rather unknown sources. For the above reasons, I do not support adoption at this point in time. /js On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:24:44PM +0100, Jérôme François wrote: > Dear all, > > We recently received an RG adoption request for > draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02 > (https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fid%2Fdraft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168487059&sdata=M%2FTst5mAOIjFeR1iFSukkcRTaOchtVh9ewwBRVbky4M%3D&reserved=0) > > Please let us know if you support the work becoming a RG document or > if you think it should not be adopted. In all cases, provide detailed > comments to support your opinion and send them on the mailing list. > > This call for adoption is open for two weeks and ends up on 19 December 2019. > > The procedure for RG document adoption and important criteria are > detailed > here: > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fnmrg%2FCVEyLUvfxJk1Ud5WdM9Y5LGvQmU&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=7rhDdw7Y5XcdL1Af1MxnlfrF3wjQknNKZpSWIU%2FYcIU%3D&reserved=0 > > Best regards > NMRG chairs > Laurent & Jérôme > > _______________________________________________ > nmrg mailing list > nmrg@irtf.org > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=lUFZxPcdaugC8U%2BAWiLnm9DQxVJlQGdhM6CNmwMF84E%3D&reserved=0 -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jacobs-university.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=tMNXSBE2hRvkwWK676Zb%2FzUROEGDRRMrjEBUQJF48Vc%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ nmrg mailing list nmrg@irtf.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=lUFZxPcdaugC8U%2BAWiLnm9DQxVJlQGdhM6CNmwMF84E%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ nmrg mailing list nmrg@irtf.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=lUFZxPcdaugC8U%2BAWiLnm9DQxVJlQGdhM6CNmwMF84E%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ nmrg mailing list nmrg@irtf.org https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnmrg&data=02%7C01%7Cy.elkhatib%40lancaster.ac.uk%7Cf4cb25180e5e4f4bb8ce08d779af12a3%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637111665168497055&sdata=lUFZxPcdaugC8U%2BAWiLnm9DQxVJlQGdhM6CNmwMF84E%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ nmrg mailing list nmrg@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
- [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-cla… Jérôme François
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-n… Natale, Bob
- Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-n… Branislav Meandzija
- Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-n… El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib)
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Liushucheng (Will Liu)
- Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-n… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Jéferson Campos Nobre
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-n… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… SUN Xueyuan
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… sunqiong.bri@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… lichen6@chinatelecom.cn
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Schönwälder
- [nmrg] 回复: Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… lichen6@chinatelecom.cn
- [nmrg] Fw: Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-in… Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Jérôme François
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Olga Havel
- Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent… Ying Cheng
- [nmrg] Adoption call result for draft-li-nmrg-int… Jérôme François