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