Hi, Toerless, Brian & Jeferson, Please see my replies in line with quotas from you.
Toerless> Other folks in the IETF clearly think that a service definition is NOT intent, but > intent can only be some yet unclear high level policy. If thats the prevailing > opinion/wisdom in the IETF, then IMHO we need to be more explicit about the > fact that Intent is not the only input into the network but that there is also > other input. Such as services. And anything else that people do not want to > call > Intent. I prefer such distinguish definitions. Intent itself does not have a clear definition. It does not a clear role in Autonomic network either. This word has been abused a lot. If we cannot reach consensus on its semantics. It may be wise to give up it and choose more precise terminologies. Toerless>I think that draft-du-anima-an-intent would equally > apply to all information we would want to distribute into an autonomic > network. Jeferson>I believe this could be addressed in draft-du-anima-an-intent. As a co-author of this draft, I also think we have a very good base already. However, we may need to rename the document in order to avoid the too-hot term "intent". Brian>we could spend another 6 months discussing how to know Intent when we see it. But I would prefer that to happen in NMRG. Jeferson>I agree with Brian, the intent "philosophical" discussion fits better the NMRG. This suggestion is actually very pragmatic. Let's focus on these concrete and generic solutions first. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 7:05 AM > To: Toerless Eckert; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] What is intent ? > > Distribution trimmed to Anima: > > Whenever I've asked "Is X Intent?", I've usually been told "No" except for > cases > where X is too abstract to interpret algorithmically. > > But in practice, I believe that many ASAs will need instructions from the NOC > to > modify their default behaviour. I don't care what we call those instructions; > for > the prefix management use case we just called them "parameters". > > So maybe Anima should focus on parameter distribution more than on Intent. I > think that's the point of draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution. > A fairly simple change to the wording of draft-du-anima-an-intent would adapt > it to generic parameter distribution. > > Converting abstract Intent to concrete parameters can be completely separate > from this, and could well be a centralised operation. > > Or we could spend another 6 months discussing how to know Intent when we > see it. But I would prefer that to happen in NMRG. > > Regards > Brian > > On 26/07/2017 08:34, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > I have an autonomic network, and i want for another customer another > > L3VPN service instance in it. How would i tell the network that i > > want this ? Via intent or via something else ? > > > > If it is something else, what is it ? I do not see any other > > information flow from operator to network beside intent in RFC7575 or > draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. > > Maybe i am missing something. > > > > If it is intent, how would it look like ? Could it simply be a > > definition of an L3VPN service instance in the model defined in rfc8049 ? > > If not, > why not ? > > > > IMHO: Intent in ANIMA includes service definitions such as what > > rfc8049 is, except that we would reserve the right to eliminate all > > parameters of rfc8049 for which we figure out autonomic ways to > > determine them. Which alas seems to be quite difficult for most parameters. > > > > Other folks in the IETF clearly think that a service definition is NOT > > intent, but intent can only be some yet unclear high level policy. If > > thats the prevailing opinion/wisdom in the IETF, then IMHO we need to > > be more explicit about the fact that Intent is not the only input into > > the network but that there is also other input. Such as services. And > > anything else that people do not want to call Intent. > > > > Lets assume service and other necessary data operator->network should > > not be called intent. But lets say the superset of intent + services + > > everything else is called eg: "information". I think that > > draft-du-anima-an-intent would equally apply to all information we > > would want to distribute into an autonomic network. > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Anima mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
