idnits 2.17.1
draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 349 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
one being 12 characters in excess of 72.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
== Line 528 has weird spacing: '...e, many appl...'
== Line 532 has weird spacing: '...vice in conce...'
== Line 535 has weird spacing: '...elopers matc...'
== Line 536 has weird spacing: '...irectly corr...'
== Line 1109 has weird spacing: '... on the simil...'
== The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
2119 boilerplate text.
-- The document date (November 18, 2019) is 1620 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7575' is defined on line 1157, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8328' is defined on line 1162, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3198' is defined on line 1167, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6020' is defined on line 1174, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7285' is defined on line 1178, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ANIMA-Prefix' is defined on line 1199, but no
explicit reference was found in the text
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Network Working Group C. Li
2 Internet Draft China Telecom
3 Intended status: Informational O. Havel
4 Expires: May 2020 W. Liu
5 Huawei Technologies
6 P. Martinez-Julia
7 NICT
8 J. Nobre
9 UFRGS
10 D. Lopez
11 Telefonica I+D
12 November 18, 2019
14 Intent Classification
15 draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
17 Status of this Memo
19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
24 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
25 Drafts.
27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
30 Drafts is at
31 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
34 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
35 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
36 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
38 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2020.
40 Copyright Notice
42 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
43 document authors. All rights reserved.
45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
48 publication of this document. Please review these documents
49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
50 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
51 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
52 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
53 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
55 Abstract
57 RFC7575 defines Intent as an abstract high-level policy used to
58 operate the network. Intent management system includes an interface
59 for users to input requests and an engine to translate the intents
60 into the network configuration and manage their lifecycle. Up to
61 now, there is no commonly agreed definition, interface or model of
62 intent.
64 This document discusses what intent means to different stakeholders,
65 describes different ways to classify intent, and an associated
66 taxonomy of this classification. This is a foundation for discussion
67 intent related topics.
69 Table of Contents
71 1. Introduction ................................................ 3
72 2. Acronyms .................................................... 4
73 3. Abstract intent requirements ................................. 4
74 3.1. What is Intent? ......................................... 4
75 3.2. Intent Solutions & Intent Users ......................... 5
76 3.3. Current Problems & Requirements ......................... 6
77 3.4. Intent Types that need to be supported .................. 7
78 4. Functional Characteristics and Behavior ...................... 9
79 4.1. Persistence ............................................ 9
80 4.2. Feedback ............................................... 9
81 4.3. Hierarchy ............................................. 10
82 4.4. Abstracting Intent Operation ........................... 11
83 4.5. Policy Subjects and Policy Targets ..................... 11
84 4.6. Policy Scope .......................................... 11
85 5. Intent Classification Table Example ......................... 13
86 5.1. Intent Classification Table Example (Carrier Solution).. 14
87 5.1.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 14
88 5.1.2. Intent Categories ................................. 16
89 5.2. Intent Classification Table Example (Data Center Solutions)
90 ........................................................... 18
91 5.2.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 18
92 5.2.2. Intent Categories ................................. 20
93 5.3. Intent Classification Table Example (Enterprise Solution)22
94 5.3.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 22
95 5.3.2. Intent Categories ................................. 23
96 6. The Policy Continuum ........................................ 25
97 7. Involvement of intent in the application of AI to Network Manage
98 ment .......................................................... 25
99 8. Security Considerations ..................................... 27
100 9. IANA Considerations ........................................ 27
101 10. Contributors .............................................. 27
102 11. Acknowledgments ........................................... 27
103 12. References ................................................ 27
104 12.1. Normative References .................................. 27
105 12.2. Informative References ................................ 28
107 1. Introduction
109 Different SDOs, including IETF [ANIMA], ONF [ONF], ONOS [ONOS], have
110 proposed intent as a declarative interface for defining a set of
111 network operations to execute.
113 Although there is no common definition or model of intent which are
114 agreed by all SDOs, there are several shared principles:
116 o intent should be declarative, using and depending on as few
117 deployment details as possible and focusing on what and not how
119 o intent should provide an easy-to-use interface, and use
120 terminology and concepts familiar to its target audience
122 o intent should be vendor-independent and portable across
123 platforms
125 o the intent framework should be able to detect and resolve
126 conflicts between multiple intents.
128 SDOs have different perspectives on what intent is, what set of
129 actors it is intended to serve, and how it should be used. This
130 document provides several dimensions to classify intents.
132 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
133 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
134 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
136 2. Acronyms
138 CLI: Command Line Interface
140 SDO: Standards Development Organization
142 SUPA: Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
144 VPN: Virtual Private Network
146 DC: Data Center
148 3. Abstract intent requirements
150 In order to understand the different intent requirements that would
151 drive intent classification, we first need to understand what intent
152 means for different intent users.
154 3.1. What is Intent?
156 The term Intent has become very widely used in the industry for
157 different purposes, sometimes it is not even in agreement with SDO
158 shared principles mentioned in the Introduction. Different
159 stakeholders consider an intent to be an ECA policy, a GBP policy, a
160 business policy, a network service, a customer service, a network
161 configuration, application / application group policy, any
162 operator/administrator task, network troubleshooting / diagnostics /
163 test, a new app, a marketing term for existing
164 management/orchestration capabilities, etc. Their intent is
165 sometimes technical, non-technical, abstract or technology specific.
166 For some stakeholders, intent is a subset of these and for other
167 stakeholders intent is all of these. It has in some cases become a
168 term to replace a very generic 'service' or 'policy' terminology.
170 While it is easier for those familiar with different standards to
171 understand what service, CFS, RFS, resource, policy continuum, ECA
172 policy, declarative policy, abstract policy or intent policy is, it
173 may be more difficult for the wider audience. Intent is very often
174 just a synonym for policy. Those familiar with policies understand
175 the difference between a business, intent, declarative, imperative
176 and ECA policy. But maybe the wider audience does not understand the
177 difference and sometimes equates the policy to an ECA policy.
179 Therefore, it is important to start a discussion in the industry
180 about what intent is for different solutions and intent users. It is
181 also imperative to try to propose some intent categories /
182 classifications that could be understood by a wider audience. This
183 would help us define intent interfaces, DSLs and models.
185 3.2. Intent Solutions & Intent Users
187 Different Solutions and Actors have different requirements,
188 expectations and priorities for intent driven networking. They
189 require different intent types and have different use cases. Some
190 users are more technical and require intents that expose more
191 technical information. Other users do not understand networks and
192 require intents that shield them from different networking concepts
193 and technologies. The following are the solutions and intent users
194 that intent driven networking needs to support:
196 +--------------------+------------------------------------+
197 | Solutions | Intent Users |
198 +--------------------+------------------------------------+
199 | Carrier Networks | Network Operator |
200 | | Service Designers |
201 | | Service Operators |
202 | | Customers/Subscribers |
203 +--------------------+------------------------------------+
204 | DC Networks | Cloud Administrator |
205 | | Underlay Network Administrator |
206 | | App Developers |
207 | | End Users |
208 +--------------------+------------------------------------+
209 | Enterprise Networks| Enterprise Administrator |
210 | | App Developers |
211 | | End Users |
212 +--------------------+------------------------------------+
214 o For carrier networks scenario, for example, if the end users
215 wants to watch high-definition video, then the intent is to
216 convert the video image to 1080p rate for the users.
218 o For DC networks scenario, administrators have their own clear
219 network intent such as load balancing. For all traffic flows that
220 need NFV service chaining, restrict the maximum load of any VNF
221 node/container below 50% and the maximum load of any network link
222 below 70%.
224 o For Enterprise Networks scenario, enterprise administrators
225 express their intent from an external client(application service
226 provider).For example, when hosting a video conference, multiple
227 remote access is required. The intent expressed to the network
228 operator: For any user of this application, the arrival time of
229 hologram objects of all the remote tele-presenters should be
230 synchronised within 50ms to reach the destination viewer for each
231 conversation session.
233 3.3. Current Problems & Requirements
235 Network APIs and CLIs are too complex due to the fact that they
236 expose technologies & topologies. App developers and end-users do
237 not want to set IP Addresses, VLANs, subnets, ports, etc. Operators
238 and administrators would also benefit from the simpler interfaces,
239 like:
241 o Allow Customer Site A to be connected to Internet via Network B
243 o Allow User A to access all internal resources, except the Server
244 B
246 o Allow User B to access Internet via Corporate Network A
248 o Move all Users from Corporate Network A to the Corporate Network
249 B
251 o Request Gold VPN service between my sites A, B and C
253 o Provide CE Redundancy for all Customer Sites
255 o Add Access Rules to my Service
257 Networks are complex, with many different protocols and
258 encapsulations. Some basic questions are not easy to answer:
260 o Can User A talk to User B?
262 o Can Host A talk to Host B?
264 o Are there any loops in my network?
266 o Are Network A and Network B connected?
268 o Can User A listen to communications between Users B & C?
269 Operators and Administrators manually troubleshoot and fix their
270 networks and services. They instead want:
272 o a reliable network that is self-configured and self-assured based
273 on the intent
275 o to be notified about the problem before the user is aware
277 o automation of network/service recovery based on intent (self-
278 healing, self-optimization)
280 o to get suggestions about correction/optimization steps based on
281 experience (historical data & behaviour)
283 Therefore, Operators and Administrators want to:
285 o simplify and automate network operations
287 o simplify definitions of network services
289 o provide simple customer APIs for Value Added Services (operators)
291 o be informed if the network or service is not behaving as
292 requested
294 o enable automatic optimization and correction for selected
295 scenarios
297 o have systems that learn from historic information and behaviour
299 End-Users cannot build their own services and policies without
300 becoming technical experts and they must perform manual maintenance
301 actions. Application developers and end-users/subscribers want to be
302 able to:
304 o build their own network services with their own policies via
305 simple interfaces, without becoming networking experts
307 o have their network services up and running based on intent and
308 automation only, without any manual actions or maintenance
310 3.4. Intent Types that need to be supported
312 The following intent types need to be supported, in order to address
313 the requirements from different solutions and intent users:
315 o Customer network service intent
316 o for customer self-service
318 o for service operator orders
320 o for intent driven network configuration, verification,
321 correction and optimization
323 o Network resource management
325 o For network configuration
327 o For automated lifecycle management of network configurations
329 o For network resources (switches, routers, routing, policies,
330 underlay)
332 o Cloud and cloud resource management
334 o For DC configuration, VMs, DB Servers, APP Servers
336 o For communication between VMs
338 o For cloud resource lifecycle management (policy driven self-
339 configuration & auto-scaling & recovery/optimization)
341 o Network Policy intent
343 o For security, QoS, application policies, traffic steering, etc
345 o For configuring & monitoring policies, alarms generation for
346 non-compliance, auto-recovery
348 o Task based intents
350 o For network migration
352 o For server replacements
354 o For device replacements
356 o For network software upgrades
358 o To automate any tasks that operators/administrator often
359 perform
361 o System policies intents
362 o For intent management system policies
364 o For design models and policies for network service design
366 o For design models and policies for network design
368 o For design workflows, models and policies for task based
369 intents
371 o Intents that affect other intents
373 o It may be task based intent that modifies many other intents.
375 o The task itself is short-lived, but the modification of other
376 intents has an impact on their lifecycle, so those changes
377 must continue to be continuously monitored and self-
378 corrected/self-optimized.
380 4. Functional Characteristics and Behavior
382 Intent can be used to operate immediately on a target (much like
383 issuing a command), or whenever it is appropriate (e.g., in response
384 to an event). In either case, intent has a number of behaviors that
385 serve to further organize its purpose, as described by the following
386 subsections.
388 4.1. Persistence
390 Intents can be classified into transient/persistent intents:
392 o If intent is transient, it has no lifecycle management. As soon
393 as the specified operation is successfully carried out, the
394 intent is finished, and can no longer affect the target object.
396 o If the intent is persistent, it has lifecycle management. Once
397 the intent is successfully activated and deployed, the system
398 will keep all relevant intents active until they are deactivated
399 or removed.
401 4.2. Feedback
403 Intent can be classified by whether it is necessary to feedback the
404 network information to the intended proponent after the intent is
405 executed.
407 o For ordinary users, they don't care how the intent is executed,or
408 the details of the network. As a result, they don't need to know
409 the configuration information of the underlying network. They
410 only focus on whether the intent execution result achieves the
411 goal, and the execution effect such as the quality of completion
412 and the length of execution.
414 o For administrators, such as network administrators, they perform
415 intents, such as allocating network resources, selecting
416 transmission paths, handling network failures, etc. They require
417 multiple feedback indicators for network resource conditions,
418 congestion conditions, fault conditions, etc. after execution.
420 4.3. Hierarchy
422 In different phases of the autonomous driving network[TMF-auto], the
423 intents are different. A typical example of autonomous driving
424 network Level 0 to 5 are listed as below.
426 o Level 0 - Traditional manual network: O&M personnel manually
427 control the network and obtain network alarms and logs. - No
428 intent
430 o Level 1 - Partially automated network: Automated scripts are used
431 to automate service provisioning, network deployment, and
432 maintenance. Shallow perception of network status and decision
433 making suggestions of machine; - No intent
435 o Level 2 - Automated network: Automation of most service
436 provisioning, network deployment, and maintenance comprehensive
437 perception of network status and local machine decision making;
438 - simple intent on service provisioning
440 o Level 3 - Self-optimization network: Deep awareness of network
441 status and automatic network control, meeting users' network
442 intentions. - Intent based on network status cognition
444 o Level 4 - Partial autonomous network: In a limited environment,
445 people do not need to participate in decision-making and adjust
446 themselves. - Intent based on limited AI
448 o Level 5 - Autonomous network: In different network environments
449 and network conditions, the network can automatically adapt to
450 and adjust to meet people's intentions. - Intent based on AI
452 4.4. Abstracting Intent Operation
454 The modeling of Policies can be abstracting using the following
455 three-tuple:
457 {Context, Capabilities, Constraints}
459 Context grounds the policy, and determines if it is relevant or not
460 for the current situation. Capabilities describe the functionality
461 that the policy can perform. Capabilities take different forms,
462 depending on the expressivity of the policy as well as the
463 programming paradigm(s) used. Constraints define any restictions on
464 the capabilities to be used for that particular context. Metadata
465 can be optionally attached to each of the elements of the three-
466 tuple, and may be used to describe how the policy should be used and
467 how it operates, as well as prescribe any operational dependencies
468 that must be taken into account. Put another way:
470 o Context selects policies based on applicability
472 o Capabilities describe the functionality provided by the policy
474 o Constraints restrict the capabilities offered and/or the behavior
475 of the policy
477 Hence, the difference between imperative, declarative, and other
478 types of policies lies in how the elements of this three-tuple are
479 used according to that particular programming paradigm. This is how
480 [SUPA] was designed: a Policy is a container that aggregates a set
481 of tatements.
483 4.5. Policy Subjects and Policy Targets
485 Policy subject is the actor that performs the action specified in
486 the policy. It can be the intent management system which executes
487 the policy. Policy target is a set of managed objects which may be
488 affected in the policy enforcement.
490 4.6. Policy Scope
492 Policies used to manage the behavior of objects that they are
493 applied to (e.g., the target of the policy). It is useful to
494 differentiate between the following categories of targets:
496 o Policies defined for the Customer or End-User
498 o Policies defined for the management system to act on objects in
499 the domain that the management system controls
501 o Policies defined for the management system to act on objects in
502 one or more domains that the management system does not directly
503 control
505 The different origins and views of these three categories of actors
506 lead to the following important differences:
508 o Network Knowledge. This area is explored using three exemplary
509 actors that have different knowledge of the network:
511 o Customers and end-users do not necessarily know the functional
512 and operational details of the network that they are using.
513 Furthermore, most of the actors in this category lack skills
514 to understand such details; in fact, such knowledge is
515 typically not relevant to their job. In addition, the network
516 may not expose these details to its users. This class of
517 actor focuses on the applications that they run, and uses
518 services offered by the network. Hence, they want to specify
519 policies that provide consistent behavior according to their
520 business needs. They do not have to worry about how the
521 policies are deployed onto the underlying network, and
522 especially, whether the policies need to be translated to
523 different forms to enable network elements to understand
524 them.
526 o Application developers work in a set of abstractions defined
527 by their application and programming environment(s). For
528 example, many application developers think in terms of
529 objects (e.g., a VPN). While this makes sense to the
530 application developer, most network devices do not have a VPN
531 object per se; rather, the VPN is formed through a set of
532 configuration statements for that device in concert with
533 configuration statements for the other devices that
534 together make up the VPN. Hence, the view of application
535 developers matches the services provided by the network,
536 but may not directly correspond to other views of other
537 actors.
539 o Management personnel, such as network Administrators, may have
540 the knowledge of the underlying network. However, they may
541 not understand the details of the applications and services
542 of Customers and End-Users.
544 o Automation. Theoricaly, intents from both end-user and management
545 system can be automated. In practice, most intents from end-user
546 are created manually according to business request. End-users do
547 not create or alter intents unless there is change in business.
548 Intents from management systems can be created or altered to
549 reflect with network policy change. For example, end-users create
550 intents to set up paths between hosts, while the management
551 system creates an intent to set a global link utilization limit.
553 5. Intent Classification Table Example
555 This chapter proposes the intent classification table approach that
556 may help to classify mainstream intent related demos / tools. The
557 table was created based on the following:
559 o Comments from Chairs that it would be better to have one table
560 that would collect all classification info from the text in our
561 draft, so that it could be used for easy classification of
562 different tools / demos going forward, starting with the ones
563 presented at the meeting
565 o Categories were initially created solely based on info from this
566 draft and expanded based on some discussions during the NMRG 56th
567 meeting and some additional categories mentioned during demo
568 presentations (e.g. Applications, VNFs, Network Scope)
570 This document contains simplified table split into multiple tables.
571 The full table would be shared on the web site.
573 We first classify intents into intent types and describe each type
574 based on the solution it belongs to and what intent user it is for.
576 We than present different categories that these intent type can
577 belong to, based on intent scope, network scope, intent abstraction
578 and lifecycle.
580 5.1. Intent Classification Table Example (Carrier Solution)
582 5.1.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
584 The following table describes the Intent Users in Carrier Solutions
585 and Intent Types with their descriptions for different intent users.
587 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
588 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
589 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
590 | Customer/ | Customer | Customer Self-Service with SLA & Value Added |
591 | Subscriber | Service | Service |
592 | | Intent | |
593 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
594 | | Strategy | Customer's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
595 | | Intent | models) that define relationships between |
596 | | | Customer Intents and Network Service Intents |
597 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
598 | Network | Network | Service provided by the Network Service Operator |
599 | Operator | Service | to the Customer (e.g. the Service Operator). |
600 | | Intent | This is the 'promise' declared to the customer |
601 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
602 | | Network | Network Operator requests network-wide (service |
603 | | Intent | underlay or other network-wide configuration) or |
604 | | | network resource configurations (switches, |
605 | | | routers, routing, policies). Includes |
606 | | | Connectivity, Routing, QoS, Security, |
607 | | | Application Policies, Traffic Steering Policies, |
608 | | | Configuration policies, Monitoring policies, |
609 | | | alarm generation for non-compliance, |
610 | | | auto-recovery, etc. No overlap with other intents|
611 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
612 | | Operational | Network Operator requests execution of any |
613 | | Task | automated task other than Network Service Intent |
614 | | Intent | and Network Intent (e.g. Network Migration, |
615 | | | Server Replacements, Device Replacements, |
616 | | | Network Software Upgrades. |
617 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
618 | | Strategy | Operator's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
619 | | Intent | models, scripts, workflows) to be used by |
620 | | | Network Service, Network and Operational Task |
621 | | | Intents. Workflows can automate any tasks that |
622 | | | Network Operator often performed in addition to |
623 | | | Network Service Intents and Network Intents |
624 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
625 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
626 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
627 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
628 | Service | Customer | Service Operator's Customer Orders, Customer |
629 | Operator | Service | Service / SLA |
630 | | Intent | |
631 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
632 | | Network | Service Operator's Network Orders / Network SLA |
633 | | Service | |
634 | | Intent | |
635 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
636 | | Operational | Service Operator requests execution of the any |
637 | | Task | automated task other than Customer Service Intent|
638 | | Intent | and Network Service Intent |
639 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
640 | | Strategy | Operator's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
641 | | Intent | models, scripts, workflows) to be used by |
642 | | | Network Service, Network and Operational Task |
643 | | | Intents. Workflows can automate any tasks that |
644 | | | Network Operator often performed in addition to |
645 | | | Network Service Intents and Network Intents |
646 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
647 | Application | Customer | Customer Service Intent API provided to the |
648 | Developer | Service | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
649 | | Intent | external VAS developers / integrators) |
650 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
651 | | Network | Network Service Intent API provided to the |
652 | | Service | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
653 | | Intent | external) |
654 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
655 | | Network | Network Intent API provided to the |
656 | | Intent | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
657 | | | external) |
658 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
659 | | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
660 | | Task | Application Developers. This is for the trusted |
661 | | Intent | internal Operator / Service Providers / Customer |
662 | | | DevOps |
663 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
664 | | Strategy | Application Developer design policies, models, |
665 | | Intent | scripts, building blocks and workflows to be used|
666 | | | by Customer, Service, Network and Operational |
667 | | | Task Intents. This is for the trusted internal |
668 | | | Operator / Service Provider / Customer DevOps |
669 +-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
671 5.1.2. Intent Categories
673 The following arethe proposed categories:
674 Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
675 C4=QoS
676 Network Function (NF) Scope: C1=VNFs, C2=PNFs
677 Network Scope: C1=Radio Access, C2=Transport Access,
678 C3=Transport Aggregation, C4=Transport Core, C5=Cloud Edge,
679 C6=Cloud Core)
680 Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
681 C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback) , see Section 4.2
682 Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
683 (Short Lived)
685 The following is the Classification Table Example for Carrier.
687 +-------------+-------------+-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
688 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | NF | Network | ABS |L-C |
689 | | | Scope |Scope| Scope | | |
690 | | +-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
691 | | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|
692 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
693 | Customer/ | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
694 | Subscriber | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
695 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
696 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
697 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
698 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
699 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
700 | Network | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
701 | Operator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
702 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
703 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
704 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
705 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
706 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
707 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
708 | | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
709 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
710 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
711 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
712 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
713 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
714 +-------------+-------------+-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
715 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | NF | Network | ABS |L-C |
716 | | | Scope |Scope| Scope | | |
717 | | +-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
718 | | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|
719 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
720 | Service | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
721 | Operator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
722 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
723 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
724 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
725 | | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
726 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
727 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
728 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
729 | | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
730 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
731 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
732 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
733 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
734 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
735 | Application | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
736 | Developer | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
737 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
738 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
739 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
740 | | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
741 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
742 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
743 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
744 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
745 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
746 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
747 | | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
748 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
749 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
750 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
751 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
752 +-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
754 5.2. Intent Classification Table Example (Data Center Solutions)
756 5.2.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
758 The following table describes the Intent Users in DCN Solutions and
759 Intent Types with their descriptions for different intent users.
761 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
762 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
763 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
764 | Customer / | Customer | Customer Self-Service via Tenant Portal, |
765 | Tenants | Intent | Customers may have multiple type of end-users |
766 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
767 | | Strategy | Customer's design-time intents (e.g. policies |
768 | | Intent | models) designed by Customers/Tenants to define|
769 | | | relationship between Customer and End-User |
770 | | | Intents and exposed cloud and network service |
771 | | | intents |
772 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
773 | Cloud | Cloud | Configuration of VMs, DB Servers, App Servers, |
774 | Administrator | Management | Connectivity, Communication between VMs. |
775 | | Intent | |
776 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
777 | | Cloud | Policy-driven self-configuration & |
778 | | Resource | & recovery / optimization |
779 | | Management | |
780 | | Intent | |
781 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
782 | | Operational | Cloud Administrator requests execution of any .|
783 | | Task Intent | automated task other than Cloud Management |
784 | | | Intents and Cloud Resource Management Intents |
785 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
786 | | Strategy | Cloud Administrator designs policies, models, |
787 | | Intent | scripts and/or workflows to be used to realize |
788 | | | other intents. Automate any tasks that admin |
789 | | | often performs, in addition to lifecycle of |
790 | | | Cloud Management Intents and Cloud Management |
791 | | | Resource Intents. |
792 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
793 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
794 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
795 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
796 | Underlay | Underlay | Service created and provided by the Underlay |
797 | Network | Network | Network Administrator |
798 | Administrator | Service | |
799 | | Intent | |
800 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
801 | | Underlay | Underlay Network Administrator requests some |
802 | | Network | DCN-wide underlay network configuration or |
803 | | Intent | network resource configurations. |
804 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
805 | | Operational | Underlay Network Administrator requests |
806 | | Task Intent | execution of the any automated task other than |
807 | | | Underlay Network Service and Resource Intent. |
808 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
809 | | Strategy | Underlay Network Administrator designs models, |
810 | | Intent | policy intents, scripts and/or workflows to be |
811 | | | used to realize other intents. Automate any |
812 | | | tasks that Administrator often performs |
813 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
814 | Application | Cloud | Cloud Management Intent API provided to the |
815 | Developer | Management | Application Developers |
816 | | Intent | |
817 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
818 | | Cloud | Cloud Resource Management Intent API provided |
819 | | Resource | to the Application Developers |
820 | | Management | |
821 | | Intent | |
822 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
823 | | Underlay | Underlay Network Service API provided to the |
824 | | Network | Application Developers |
825 | | Service | |
826 | | Intent | |
827 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
828 | | Underlay | Underlay Network Resource API provided to the |
829 | | Network | Application Developers |
830 | | Intent | |
831 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
832 | | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
833 | | Task Intent | trusted Application Developer (internal DevOps)|
834 | +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
835 | | Strategy | Application Developer designs models, policy |
836 | | Intent | intents & building blocks to be used by other |
837 | | | intents. This is for the trusted internal DCN |
838 | | | DevOps. |
839 +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
841 5.2.2. Intent Categories
843 The following are the proposed categories:
844 Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
845 C4=QoS C5=Storage C6=Compute
846 DCN Resource (DCN Res) Scope: C1=Virtual, C2=Physical
847 DCN Network (DCN Net) Scope: C1=Logical, C2=Physical
848 Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
849 C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback), see Section 4.2
850 Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
851 (Short Lived)
853 The following is the Classification Table Example for DC Solutions.
855 +---------------+-------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
856 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | DCN | DCN | ABS | L-C |
857 | | | Scope | Res | Net | | |
858 | | +-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
859 | | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|
860 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
861 | Customer / | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
862 | Tenants | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
863 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
864 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
865 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
866 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
867 | Cloud | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
868 | Administrator | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
869 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
870 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
871 | | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
872 | | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
873 | | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
874 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
875 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
876 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
877 | | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
878 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
879 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
880 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
881 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
882 +---------------+-------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
883 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | DCN | DCN | ABS | L-C |
884 | | | Scope | Res | Net | | |
885 | | +-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
886 | | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|
887 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
888 | Underlay | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
889 | Network | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
890 | Administrator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
891 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
892 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
893 | | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
894 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
895 | | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
896 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
897 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
898 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
899 | | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
900 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
901 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
902 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
903 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
904 | Application | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
905 | Developer | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
906 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
907 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
908 | | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
909 | | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
910 | | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
911 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
912 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
913 | | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
914 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
915 | | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
916 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
917 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
918 | | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
919 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
920 | | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
921 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
922 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
923 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
924 | | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
925 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
926 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
927 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
928 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
930 5.3. Intent Classification Table Example (Enterprise Solution)
932 5.3.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
934 The following table describes the Intent Users in Enterprise
935 Solutions and their Intent Types.
937 +--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
938 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
939 +------------ -+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
940 | End-User | End-User | Enterprise End User Self-Service or Applications,|
941 | | Intent | Enterprise may have multiple types of End-Users |
942 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
943 | | Strategy | End-users design time intents (e.g. policies, |
944 | | Intent | models) that define relationships between |
945 | | | End-User Intents and Network Service Intents |
946 +--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
947 | | Network | Service provided by the Administrator to the |
948 | Administrator| Service | End-Users and their Applications. |
949 | (internal or | Intent | This is the 'promise' declared to the end-user |
950 | MSP) +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
951 | | Network | Administrator requires network wide configuration|
952 | | Intent | (e.g. underlay, campus) or resource |
953 | | | configuration (switches, routers, policies) |
954 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
955 | | Operational | Administrator requests execution of any |
956 | | Task Intent | automated task other than Network Service |
957 | | | Intents and Network Intents |
958 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
959 | | Strategy | Administrator designs policies, models, script |
960 | | Intent | and/or workflows to be used by other intents. |
961 | | | Automate any tasks that Administrator |
962 | | | often performs. |
963 +--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
964 +--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
965 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
966 +------------ -+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
967 | Application | End-User | End-User Service / Application Intent API |
968 | Developer | Intent | provided to the Application Developers |
969 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
970 | | Network | Network Service API Provided to Application |
971 | | Service | Developers |
972 | | Intent | |
973 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
974 | | Network | Network API Provided to Application Developers |
975 | | Intent | |
976 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
977 | | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
978 | | Task Intent | trusted Application Developer (internal DevOps) |
979 | +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
980 | | Strategy | Application Developer designs policies, models, |
981 | | Intent | scripts & building blocks to be used by other |
982 | | | intents. This is for the trusted internal DevOps |
983 +--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
985 5.3.2. Intent Categories
987 The following are the proposed categories:
988 Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
989 C4=QoS
990 Enterpise Network (Net) Scope: C1=Campus, C2=Branch, C3=SD-WAN
991 Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
992 C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback), see Section 4.2
993 Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
994 (Short Lived)
996 The following is the Intent Classification Table Example for
997 Enterprise Solutions.
999 +---------------+-------------+-----------+--------+-----+-----+
1000 | Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | Net | ABS | L-C |
1001 | | | Scope | | | |
1002 | | +-----------+--------+-----+-----+
1003 | | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C3|C1|C2|C1|C2|
1004 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1005 | End-User | End-User | | | | | | | | | | | |
1006 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1007 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1008 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
1009 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1010 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1011 | Enterprise | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
1012 | Administrator | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1013 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1014 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
1015 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1016 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1017 | Application | End-User | | | | | | | | | | | |
1018 | Developer | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1019 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1020 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
1021 | | Service | | | | | | | | | | | |
1022 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1023 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1024 | | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
1025 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1026 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1027 | | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | |
1028 | | Task | | | | | | | | | | | |
1029 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1030 | +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1031 | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
1032 | | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
1033 +---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1035 6. The Policy Continuum
1037 The Policy Continuum defines the set of actors that will create,
1038 read, use, and manage policy. Each set of actors has their own
1039 terminology and concepts that they are familiar with. This captures
1040 the fact that business people do not want to use CLI, and network
1041 operations center personnel do not want to use non-technical
1042 languages.
1044 7. Involvement of intent in the application of AI to Network Manage
1045 ment
1047 In the application of AI to NM, an intent is expected to be, on the
1048 one hand, a formal definitions of a goal or policy instructed to the
1049 decision system and, on the other hand, a formal definition of the
1050 specific actions that some network controller must perform. Goal
1051 intents and policy intents have different meanings. The former will
1052 establish an objective for the automated management system to
1053 accomplish, such as "avoiding latency to be higher than 10 ms".
1054 Meanwhile, policy intents set the overall regulations and possible
1055 actions that the AI system can use to achieve those goals. Both goal
1056 and policy intents are expected to be provided by humans, although
1057 they must be in some very formal language that can be easily
1058 understood by computers. All those relations make the degree of
1059 formality an important dimension to classify intents so that users,
1060 which here are AI-based agents, can be able to choose the proper
1061 solution to consume them.
1063 AI technology has played an important role in the different stages
1064 of the intent network implementation.
1066 o Help identify and prevent security threats: Classification
1067 algorithms can attempt to identify malware or other
1068 undesirable web content or usage;
1070 o Intentional translation: use AI algorithm to assist the
1071 translation module, split translation into the requirements
1072 contained in the semantics of the intention; automatic
1073 delivery and execution strategy;Automate tasks and
1074 appropriate network changes based on the existing network
1075 infrastructure configuration according to the policy model;
1077 o Adaptive adjustment: perceive the quality of the user
1078 experience and perform predictive analysis to proactively
1079 optimize performance, such as excessive access time;
1081 To enforce the resulting actions determined by AI-based control
1082 modules, action intents will have a format that avoids
1083 misconceptions as much as possible. This means that they will be
1084 closer to machine language structures than natural (human) language
1085 structures. This can sacrificing some degree of human
1086 understandability, so it forms another dimension in the
1087 classification of intents. This dimension allows automated systems
1088 to discern which format of intent to use in relation to the
1089 possibility and degree of humans to be involved in their exchanges.
1091 Finally, as intents can use different words and languages to refer
1092 to the same concepts, all intents related to AI will be required to
1093 follow a specific ontology. This way, input intents will be easily
1094 semantically translated to formal structures. Output intents will
1095 also be composed by following the ontology, so receivers of those
1096 intents will be able to easily understand them.
1098 For instance, in the intent classification, the machine learning
1099 algorithm can be utilized to extract the intent feature values and
1100 classify the intent according to the intent feature distribution.
1101 For example, using artificial intelligence clustering algorithm, a
1102 large number of intents proposed by different users are used as
1103 training data to extract multiple feature dimensions, such as
1104 vocabulary information intended to be used, related feature
1105 parameters, context proposed by the intent, and the like.Cluster
1106 analysis is performed in the same form as the coordinate system, and
1107 multiple categories are classified according to the characteristics
1108 of the sample point distribution. For the input intent later, the
1109 category of the intent is judged based on the similarity with all
1110 categories.
1112 o For specific classification intents, such as safety or fault
1113 information, conditions can be preset in advance, and once a
1114 common error message occurs, it will automatically alarm.
1116 o For the network resource information, set the corresponding
1117 threshold information. When there is a certain number of link
1118 users or the network traffic is too large, the adjustment
1119 intention is started.
1121 o For users with higher priority, the resources can be
1122 configured preferentially.
1124 8. Security Considerations
1126 This document does not have any Security Considerations.
1128 9. IANA Considerations
1130 This document has no actions for IANA.
1132 10. Contributors
1134 The following people all contributed to creating this document,
1135 listed in alphabetical order:
1137 Ying Chen, China Unicom
1138 Richard Meade, Huawei
1139 John Strassner, Huawei
1140 Xueyuan Sun, China Telecom
1141 Weiping Xu, Huawei
1143 11. Acknowledgments
1145 This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and
1146 proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
1147 alphabetical order: Brian E Carpenter, Juergen Schoenwaelder,
1148 Laurent Ciavaglia, Xiaolin Song.
1150 12. References
1152 12.1. Normative References
1154 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
1155 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
1157 [RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
1158 Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
1159 Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575, June
1160 2015.
1162 [RFC8328] Liu, W., Xie, C., Strassner, J., Karagiannis, G., Klyus,
1163 M., Bi, J., Cheng, Y., and D. Zhang, "Policy-Based
1164 Management Framework for the Simplified Use of Policy
1165 Abstractions (SUPA)", March 2018.
1167 [RFC3198] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J.,
1168 Scherling, M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson,
1169 M., Perry, J., Waldbusser, S., "Terminology for Intent-
1170 driven Management", RFC 3198, November 2001.
1172 12.2. Informative References
1174 [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
1175 Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
1176 October 2010.
1178 [RFC7285] R. Alimi, R. Penno, Y. Yang, S. Kiesel, S. Previdi, W.
1179 Roome, S. Shalunov, R. Woundy "Application-Layer Traffic
1180 Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", September 2014.
1182 [ANIMA] Du, Z., "ANIMA Intent Policy and Format", 2017,
1183 .
1186 [ONF] ONF, "Intent Definition Principles", 2017,
1187 .
1191 [ONOS] ONOS, "ONOS Intent Framework", 2017,
1192 .
1195 [SUPA] Strassner, J., "Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions",
1196 2017, .
1199 [ANIMA-Prefix] Jiang, S., Du, Z., Carpenter, B., and Q. Sun,
1200 "Autonomic IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-scale
1201 Networks", draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-07 (work in
1202 progress), December 2017.
1204 [TMF-auto] Aaron Richard Earl Boasman-Patel,et, A whitepaper of
1205 Autonomous Networks: Empowering Digital Transformation For
1206 the Telecoms Industry, inform.tmforum.org, 15 May, 2019.
1208 Authors' Addresses
1210 Chen Li
1211 China Telecom
1212 No.118 Xizhimennei street, Xicheng District
1213 Beijing 100035
1214 P.R. China
1215 Email: lichen.bri@chinatelecom.cn
1217 Olga Havel
1218 Huawei Technologies
1219 Email: olga.havel@huawei.com
1221 Will(Shucheng) Liu
1222 Huawei Technologies
1223 P.R. China
1224 Email: liushucheng@huawei.com
1226 Pedro Martinez-Julia
1227 NICT
1228 Japan
1229 Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
1231 Jeferson Campos Nobre
1232 University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos
1233 Porto Alegre
1234 Brazil
1235 Email: jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br
1237 Diego R. Lopez
1238 Telefonica I+D
1239 Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
1240 Madrid 28006
1241 Spain
1242 Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com