NMRG 57th meeting IETF 106, Singapore **************** Overall summary: . 2 first IBN drafts to call for RG adoption. (draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification and draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent) . Revised charter available and under final evaluation, containing updated research agenda reflecting the IBN, Network Management AI and Self-driving/-managing frameworks work plan. . Report on IBN practical activities with demos and tools. . Connections to other proposed frameworks and activities in IETF OPS and NETMOD on ECA framework for self-management and Service Assurance Graph related to IBN. . First steps on Network management Articificial Intelligence with proposition for a Research Challenges document. . First proposal for Network Management AI Challenge and stabilization of the Network Management AI Challenge framework. ********************************* *********** Session 1 *********** Thursday 2019/11/21 10:00 - 12:00 Room: Olivia Remote participants (4): Mouli Chandramouli, Olga Havel, Will Liu, Rafael Martins Agenda: 1. Introduction + RG information, Chairs 2. Quick report on October interim meeting on practical aspects of IBN, and follow-ups, Chairs 3. Status and progress of active I-Ds 3.1 Update on Intent Classification, Olga Havel (remote) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification/ Jérôme (as participant): criteria on "feedback". seems exclusive (feedback or not). the demanding user may not need feedback on the realization, but the network administrator could require feedback/information. Olga: correct. in the table, it is specified if the user is non-technical or technical (administrator). Alex: not clear in the tables: how going to use them, very detailed. different methods applied for different cases, or as a catalog. Olga: advice come from Laurent. intent was to classify the PoC/demos using the draft and thus ended up with the mapping table proposal. How many read the draft: 11+, useful: same+ ; ready for adoption: a few/mixed. Chairs will send call on the mailing list and check based on feedback. 3.2 Update on IBN Concepts and Overview, Alex Clemm https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent/ Diego: categories still missing in the other draft. something that could be done there. security considerations: important and long forgotten. desserve more attention: intent security and how to express security intents. How many read the draft: 12+, useful: same ; ready for adoption: 10. Chairs will send call on the mailing list and check based on feedback. 4. Technical presentations and discussion 4.1 IBN for network slicing in 5G-EVE project, Luis M. Contreras, Laurent: orientation of the draft: type of draft (informational, experimental), for IETF or IRTF? Luis: work on making the EVE interface really compliant with GSMA/3GPP NS template. 4.2 A Solution for Goal-oriented Policy Refinement in NFV Management and Orchestration Systems, Michel Sales Bonfim What is DL = Description Logic. HTN = Hierarchical Task Decomposition Diego: planning descisoin done once, or regularly? Michel: short overview. another mechanism. solution can detect if policies are not working properly. the planner can generate alarms, when triggered can reconfiguration Diego: NFVO inject NS goals... Michel: extension to NFVO to have goals in the NS descriptor. Diego: in the planner, consider interactions between different NS goals? Michel: not considered yet. Laurent; clarification on the acronm 'HTN'. method used for task decomposition. Laurent: other proposals exists for task composition, related work? Michel: paper under submission, we can discuss more the related work (there are many papers for sure) Laurent: relationships with the proposed lifecycle, exchange with drafts' authors. encourage to link with the group for practical aspects (tools/demos), and the concept/lifecycle work as contribution for the different functionalities (decompositoin, conflict...). 4.3 Intent-based networking for OTT applications: concepts, lifecycle and challenges, Sabine Randriamasy Dean: "emergence" traffic? -> Sabine: emergency (in the sense of high priority, critical communication) Diego: topology is essential in composition. How do you define a slice? Sabine: slice = cloud + network resources to run the applications, chain of functions, so basically connectiviy + application. Diego: Change OTT > Verticals. Dean: multiple service topologies per slice. Sabine: agree. this presentation skips the intent definition step. here very simple example. more complex scenarios possible. 4.4 Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture, Benoît Claise https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-00 Laurent: Assurance graph can be used in the IBN lifecycle. Can be used as a tool for this step in the lifecycle. Where the proposal would fit in the IBN architecture? Benoît: consder intent as a service definition. From the specific service type that is described, we can deduce the specific actions and so the tree. Jeff: L3VPN not an intent. need upper layer to process the intent, and then map to lower layer choosing e.g. L3VPN to instantiate the service. Alex: it is not really intent-specific but more widely usable. How to maintain these assurance graphs? practical issues? Benoît: partly from the definition itself, from network configuration. 4.5 Framework for Use of ECA (Event Condition Action) in Network Self-Management, Daniel King https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bwd-netmod-eca-framework-00 Diego: yes to the 3 questions raised in the presentation, esp. link with intent framework, e.g. for the low-level application of intent. Laurent: on Q2: ECA can be at the end of chain of intent realization, so there are relations to clarify and develop. Proposal (RG chairs): send drafts from Benoit and Dan and to the NMRG mailng list ask feedback from the group. Where it would fit in the RG work (on IBN in particular). 4.6 Next steps on Architecture and functionalities, use cases and techniques remaining time. 5. AOB items skipped due to lack of time. ********************************* *********** Session 2 *********** Friday 2019/11/22 12:20 – 13:50 Room: Collyer Remote participants: 4 Agenda: 1. NMRG recharter, Chairs Dean: management architecture concern. not changed in last 20 years. may be re-thinking the basic mgt arch. (against controller/agent), other options. gather requirements. lots of new paths. can those paths be done over existing arch. running into problems is using the curent arch. to do e.g. autonomics. would be curious to hear from the community. Jérôme: see that in the charter. please bring it to the mailing list. Colin: if proposals for arch. could be topic for conclude IBN resonable plan. suggest the rate of progress, not as energetic as other groups. intesify. AI for NM. plausible topics of the future. looking at today's agenda. if Netwokr AI, could be a good sign for the recharter. if only reports from other groups, then sign of low interest/issue. Colin: use another term than self-driving networks, too close to self-driving car. Alex: having AI for network in the charter as a means to attract community. Colin: should not be a a goal in the charter to see if there is a Network AI community. there should be already enough interest before going into the charter. Will: following other activiites...? (don't got it fully) Marie-Jose: how AI can help NM work. not only study AI for network. 2. Artificial intelligence for networking and network for AI 2.1 Adversarial Network Benchmarking, Andreas Blenk Dean: interesting work. draft from Comcast. point to you. 2.2 AI activities in other communities 2.2.a) ETSI ISG Experiential Networked Intelligence (ENI), Will Liu 2.2.b) ETSI ISG Zero-touch network and Service Management (ZSM), Laurent Ciavaglia Will: ENI and ZSM will have colocated meeting in December in France 2.2.c) IEEE ETI for Network Intelligence (NI), Laurent Ciavaglia Jerome: what are the actions of the ETI NI on "network data as a key challenge" Laurent: no clear path yet, identifying it as a clear challenge was our first goal, next steps consist in documenting items detailing types of network data and how commplex for AI. Dean: we have already today basic sets of data to be used (and identified). It gives you some starting points rather than trying to take all and then find what's relevant. Laurent: agree from operational point of view. Diego: operatorational teams do not report so much, we may share something in IETF 107 or 108 (Madrid) on Data Representation Framework. Nalini: enteprise network. encryption everywhere. how to run AI on encrypted data. packet data and meta-data at the end points is also very challenging Laurent: no experience on encrypted user data for use with AI techniques. more on the network management data (logs, scripts, config files), you can access these data sets (as an operator). Jérôme may have better feedback on the use of AI with user data. there are also data that you can access from a netman point of view. 2.2.d) ITU-T FG on Machine Learning for Future Networks including 5G (ML5G), Vishnu RAM OV 2.3 Network AI challenge 2.3.a) Update on the NMRG activity on the AI challenge, Jérôme François 2.3.b) Challenge proposition, Albert Cabellos NMRG welcomes the challenge. Let us know how NMRG can help. RG, if interest, please contact Albert or the chairs. 2.4 Wrap-up of Network AI side meeting, Chairs Shen: work on labeled data sets that can be re-used. Jérôme: agree we need to have that. however, data will be diverse so universal decrpition will not be always suitable. Who's interested in contributing to the report: 5-6 participants expressed interest to actively contribute. end of meeting.