Re: [Supa] [Anima] SUPA-Intent =? ANMA-Intent

["Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[e-mail]>]

I believe that we have used the term "Intent" in this context originally in 
   draft-behringer-autonomic-network-framework (June 2012)
which evolved to
   draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions
and is now 
   RFC7575. 

While I agree that the definition is in the context of an autonomic network and may need to be further refined, it would be nice to acknowledge the original use of the term "Intent" (in its context of course). 

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Strassner
> Sent: 23 July 2015 12:17
> To: Natale, Bob; Brian E Carpenter; Laurent Ciavaglia; [e-mail]
> Cc: anima
> Subject: Re: [Anima] SUPA-Intent =? ANMA-Intent
> 
> I'm not sure about being "authoritative" :-) but I can answer the question:
> 
> NO, SUPA has right now NOT referenced the definition of intent in RFC7575.
> This was because I personally found it too abstract to make use of.
> 
> 
> regards,
> John
> 
> John Strassner, Ph.D.
> CTO, Software Laboratory, CRD
> 
> 
> Futurewei Technologies
> US R&D Center
> 2330 Central Expressway
> Building A, office A2-2143
> Santa Clara, California   95050
>   Office:  +1.408.330.4923
>   Email:   [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Supa [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:21 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Laurent Ciavaglia; [e-mail]
> Cc: anima
> Subject: Re: [Supa] [Anima] SUPA-Intent =? ANMA-Intent
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> AFAIK, the existing posted SUPA documents do not cite RFC 7575 as a source
> for the meaning of intent, but I believe that the RFC 7575 definition matches
> the meaning of the term as it is being used in the SUPA discussions and
> supporting artifacts at present.
> 
> John Strassner would be the authoritative source to confirm, deny, or
> modify that assertion, however.
> 
> Avanti,
> BobN
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:01 AM
> To: Laurent Ciavaglia <[e-mail]>; anima
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Anima] SUPA-Intent =? ANMA-Intent
> 
> Hi Laurent,
> On 23/07/2015 05:34, Laurent Ciavaglia wrote:
> > Dear SUPA-ers and ANIMA-ers,
> >
> > In today's SUPA BoF session, the question has been raised several times
> on the Intent as defined in the SUPA or ANIMA WGs.
> 
> Unfortunately I did not attend that session, so excuse the lack of context in
> my comments below.
> 
> >
> > I would like to understand better if there are any real differences
> > between the two. Please do enlighten me with your knowledge ;)
> >
> > My current/limited understanding is that:
> >     -SUPA has a definition for Intent.
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-m
> > odel-02
> 
> I didn't find a definition there; I did find several references to "intent-
> based"
> as if that is a well understood phrase. So the first question is whether the
> definition in RFC 7575 is the one assumed in the SUPA documents.
> 
> >     -ANIMA (via RFC 7575) also has a definition.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7575
> >     -ANIMA-Intent IDs exist.
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-du-anima-an-intent ;
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-anima-intent-distribution
> >     -SUPA is not focusing on autonomic networks, but is not excluding them.
> >     -ANIMA is not chartered to work on policy based management, but is not
> excluding it.
> 
> Certainly, Intent is out of scope of the initial ANIMA charter, and that is
> explicitly to avoid boiling the ocean. Of course we are aware that Intent has
> to be handled later. The current idea is that Intent will most likely be
> distributed using the synchronization mode of GRASP (future name of
> GDNP).
> GRASP carefully does not restrict the format of the data objects that it
> transmits, so whatever format ANIMA later chooses for Intent is OK.
> 
> >
> > To me, the work of both working groups could be mutually beneficial:
> >     -ANIMA work on Intent is still nascent and the concept a bit "blurry" (but
> we are working our way up).
> >     -SUPA work on Intent seems already well-structured/planned.
> >     -Even though ANIMA has not recognized explicitly Intent as a
> > chartered work item, Intent (its role and functioning) is an essential
> element of an ANIMA-based network.
> >     -ANIMA could be a nice application domain for SUPA (and then SUPA
> > would also cover "new" types of networks, i.e. autonomic ones).
> 
> Isn't the opposite equally true: SUPA is a nice use case for ANIMA?
> 
> >     -I see the technologies of the two groups complementary to each
> > others, and that could address one of the comments raised by Benoit to
> > Oscar on the actual use of such technologies. I think that combining SUPA
> and ANIMA solutions could really benefit and simplify the life of operators.
> >
> > Note: this is _NOT_ an attempt to prevent SUPA to form as a working
> > group, neither is it proposing to merge SUPA work with ANIMA. It is
> > just a suggestion to share work that seems connected early in the process
> so that it is more efficient on the long run.
> 
> I'm uncertain whether we can say much more at present. Frankly I would
> hate to see ANIMA bogged down in endless information model discussions
> that are likely to follow any attempt to share an Intent approach with SUPA.
> But if the chairs and ADs see obviously orthogonal approaches emerging in
> the two efforts, that would be a Bad Thing and they should try to prevent it.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Supa mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima