Hi Toerless

(Top-posting to shorten it).

We are in a broad agreement here.

On this bit: "Supporting better agent communication is an important topic that 
would be great for the IETF to pick up." - agreed, but we need to see which bit 
of it needs to be supported by the network/ the system between the agents.

Two things:
- we often used AI models in an "indirect" fashion close to what you ask for 
below. Concretely, we were using AI/ML, even RL, to select the best 
parameterization for an otherwise deterministic, flexible distributed 
mechanisms. This is close to "the best of the two worlds": you 
deterministically get a correct response regardless of how badly your AI model 
was trained + you can improve the efficiency to the optimum, including in 
situations where no closed formula / one algorithmic run optimization can be 
used. [It can be formulated a bit broader of course: instead of asking an LLM 
to solve a problem (e.g., a shortest path in a graph), constrain it to use the 
best available Tools, Symbolic Solvers, etc. (e.g. Dijkstra).]

- The last part seems particularly important to me. Given that LLM/FM are 
naturally prone to errors, it would be good to point the community to the fact 
that we need not just a network OS, but precisely this protected mode OS.


Regards
Artur






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 11:31 AM
> To: Artur Hecker <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>; draft-eckert-anima-
> [email protected]; Anima WG <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Re: I-D Action: draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00.txt
> 
> Inline
> 
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 01:22:19PM +0000, Artur Hecker wrote:
> > Hi Brian, hi Alex, hi Toerless
> >
> > +1, I am also all for what you are writing there.
> >
> > I agree that it could be presented at DAWN or agent2agent lists/meetings.
> However, maybe slightly differently from Brian, I think that most of the 
> current
> efforts somehow concentrate on discovery of agents, yet I tend to see a bigger
> issue elsewhere. I do not mind discovery, but, a bit like Toerless, I fail to 
> see
> what is so new about it, agents or not.
> 
> Supporting better agent communication is an important topic that would be
> great for the IETF to pick up. We did suggest aspects for it at last IETFs 
> CATALIST
> non-WG forming BoF. I think the group that will best look into it so far is 
> DMSC,
> not DAWN.
> 
> > The document below essentially says: go away with the SDN controller and put
> an LLM on top, which will auto-program the network from the high-level intents
> expressed by the owner. For this to work, the ACP, BRSKI and GRASP serve as 
> the
> required and potentially sufficient foundation.
> 
> More like the lowest common denominator. More would be better, but i think
> you can't build something reliable without them. So definitely if we can't 
> agree
> on nothing else of how to do network management with the help of agentic AI,
> we hopefully do at least agree that it's a good opportunity to highlight the
> importance of the ANI to do it reliably.
> 
> > Personally, I agree with this vision, I would have loved that to happen way
> earlier, but somehow community lost interest in that... Now, the whole story
> about agents jump-starts the next chapter of the same story.
> 
> Router software infrastructure is highly ossified, and even when it's being 
> re-
> implemented, then folks who do it have no clue what they're missing out on.
> 
> > Some remarks:
> > - maybe instead of "heuristic" we should talk about probabilistic 
> > behaviour? As
> per its definition, a heuristic is an approach to problem solving, which 
> might not
> be optimal or rationalized yet good enough [cmp. Wikipedia]. I am not sure
> LLM's answers are, in that sense, good enough, as they often turn out to be
> awfully wrong at times. That's the reason we can't work with that in critical
> systems (yet?).
> 
> Good point on terminology. And the core proposal of the draft effectively is 
> to
> not let agents directly do arbitrary changes to the network directly, but 
> instead
> let them program automation and control exhaustive testing of the automation
> programming. All the stuff we would do without agentic AI too.
> 
> Or said differently: Letting an AI agent directly reconfigure a network every
> router one-by-one instead of writing a program to do it is just like a human
> doing it manually - becoming exhausted and erraneous and unpredictable when
> it has to happen over and over.
> 
> Obviously, we need to find good distinctions between this "LLM level problem"
> and e.g.:
> the use of specific DNN for problems that can perfectly live with 
> probabilistic
> solutions - such as traffic engineering.
> 
> > - if we are serious about ACP/GRASP/BRSKI as foundation, we would need to
> show that, even in spite of potential misjudgments by LLM or programming
> errors done by it, ACP would always remain "the last Mohican": ACP should be
> the last to fail, i.e. in presence of a potentially unverified programs 
> produced at
> will by the LLM/foundation model, the ACP must act like an implementation of a
> protected mode in an OS, like an OS kernel if you will, preserving the 
> possibility
> to repair/remove/terminate misbehaving programs. Such that we can have a
> bunch of simple yet reliable tools on top of ACP to clean away any nonsense
> introduced by LLM/foundation models, and, also very important, to be able to
> isolate the effects of such programs by separating concerns and enforcing
> "control app manifests" in a distributed system.
> 
> Indeed. And maybe we should use the opportunity to write this up anew for the
> agentic AI crows to also come up with new better terminology. Instead of or in
> addition to ANI maybe call it the "Network wide OS kernel" - aka: more good
> marketing suggestions more than welcome!
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> >
> > Regards
> > Artur
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 3:50 AM
> > To: [email protected]; Anima WG <[email protected]>
> > Subject: [Anima] Re: I-D Action: draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00.txt
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm all for what you are saying in this draft, but I think you also have to 
> > address
> it to the DAWN people and everybody working on agentic communications.
> Look at draft-he-dawn-ipv6-agent-aware-framework, for example; it has very
> little to do with IPv6. Maybe you should ask for a slot at the DAWN BOF? (DAWN
> = Discovery of Agents, Workloads, and Named Entities.) At least point out that
> ANIMA/GRASP has been working on discovery of agents since the dawn of time
> (pun intended).
> >
> > Also, the trust boundary issue we just discussed re 
> > draft-soulard-anima-grasp-
> router-problem-statement is going to be relevant. I see a clear clash between
> the type of trust boundary that BRSKI provides and how the agentic community
> is looking at trust.
> >
> > Nit: s/autonomous/autonomic/ globally
> >
> > (We chose "autonomic" at the beginning of ANIMA, by analogy with the
> > autonomic nervous system, so I think we need to be consistent.)
> >
> > Regards/Ngā mihi
> >     Brian
> >
> > On 06-Jul-26 11:28, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Internet-Draft draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00.txt is now available.
> > >
> > >     Title:   AI for Autonomous Networking
> > >     Authors: Toerless Eckert
> > >              Alexander Clemm
> > >     Name:    draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00.txt
> > >     Pages:   17
> > >     Dates:   2026-07-05
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >
> > >     This document builds on the architectural foundation of the IETF
> > >     ANIMA "Autonomous Network Infrastructure" to propose an architecture
> > >     for in-network intelligence in support of network automation.
> > >
> > >     The key aspect of this architecture is the use of AI programmed and
> > >     validated software running decentralized on the network.
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-anima-ai4an/
> > >
> > > There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-anima-ai4an-00
> > >
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> > > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe
> > > send an email to [email protected]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> 
> --
> ---
> [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to