[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                           A. Clemm
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                              L. Ciavaglia
Expires: January 9, 2020                                           Nokia
                                                            L. Granville
                         Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                            July 8, 2019


            Intent-Based Networking - Concepts and Overview
                    draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-02

Abstract

   Intent and Intent-Based Networking are taking the industry by storm.
   At the same time, those terms are used loosely and often
   inconsistently, in many cases overlapping and confused with other
   concepts such as "policy".  This document is intended to clarify the
   concept of "Intent" and provide an overview of functionality that
   associated with it.  The goal is to contribute towards a common and
   shared understanding of terms, concepts, and functionality which can
   be used as foundation to guide further definition of associated
   research and engineering problems and their solutions.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Definitions and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Introduction of Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Intent and Intent-Based Management  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Related Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Service Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Policy and Policy-Based Management  . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.3.  Distinguishing between Intent, Policy, and Service
               Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Intent-Based Networking - Functionality . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Intent Fulfillment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Intent Assurance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Research Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Intent Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Explanation Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.3.  IBN Metrics to Guide Desired Outcomes . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Items for Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Traditionally in the IETF, interest with regard to management and
   operations has focused on individual network and device features.
   Standardization emphasis has generally been put on management
   instrumentation that needed to be provided to a networking device.  A
   prime example for this is SNMP-based management and the 200+ MIBs
   that have been defined by the IETF over the years.  More recent




Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   examples include YANG data model definitions for aspects such as
   interface configuration, ACL configuration, or Syslog configuration.

   There is a sense and reality that in modern network environments
   managing networks by configuring myriads of "nerd knobs" on a device-
   by-device basis is no longer sustainable.  Big challenges arise with
   keeping device configurations not only consistent across a network,
   but consistent with the needs of services and service features they
   are supposed to enable.  Adoptability to changes at scale is a
   fundamental property of a well designed IBN system, that requires
   abilty to consume and process analytics that are context/intent aware
   at near real time speeds.  At the same time, operations need to be
   streamlined and automated wherever possible to not only lower
   operational expenses, but allow for rapid reconfiguration of networks
   at sub-second time scales and to ensure networks are delivering their
   functionality as expected.

   Accordingly, IETF has begun to address end-to-end management aspects
   that go beyond the realm of individual devices in isolation.
   Examples include the definition of YANG models for network topology
   [RFC8345] or the introduction of service models used by service
   orchestration systems and controllers [RFC8309].  In addition, a lot
   of interest has been fueled by the discussion about how to manage
   autonomic networks as discussed in the ANIMA working group.
   Autonomic networks are driven by the desire to lower operational
   expenses and make management of the network as a whole exceptionally
   easy, putting it at odds with the need to manage the network one
   device and one feature at a time.  However, while autonomic networks
   are intended to exhibit "self-management" properties, they still
   require input from an operator or outside system to provide
   operational guidance and information about the goals, purposes, and
   service instances that the network is to serve.

   This vision has since caught on with the industry in a big way,
   leading to a significant number solutions that offer "intent-based
   management" that promise network providers to manage networks
   holistically at a higher level of abstraction and as a system that
   happens to consist of interconnected components, as opposed to a set
   of independent devices (that happen to be interconnected).  Those
   offerings include IBN systems (offering full lifecycle of intent),
   SDN controllers (offering a single point of control and
   administration for a network) as well as network management and
   Operations Support Systems (OSS).

   However, it has been recognized for a long time that comprehensive
   management solutions cannot operate only at the level of individual
   devices and low-level configurations.  In this sense, the vision of
   "intent" is not entirely new.  In the past, ITU-T's model of a



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   Telecommunications Management Network, TMN, introduced a set of
   management layers that defined a management hierarchy, consisting of
   network element, network, service, and business management.  High-
   level operational objectives would propagate in top-down fashion from
   upper to lower layers.  The associated abstraction hierarchy was key
   to decompose management complexity into separate areas of concerns.
   This abstraction hierarchy was accompanied by an information
   hierarchy that concerned itself at the lowest level with device-
   specific information, but that would, at higher layers, include, for
   example, end-to-end service instances.  Similarly, the concept of
   "policy-based management" has for a long time touted the ability to
   allow users to manage networks by specifying high-level management
   policies, with policy systems automatically "rendering" those
   policies, i.e. breaking them down into low-level configurations and
   control logic.

   What has been missing, however, is putting these concepts into a more
   current context and updating it to account for current technology
   trends.  This document attempts to clarify the concepts behind
   intent.  It differentiates it from related concepts.  It also
   provides an overview of first-order principles of Intent-Based
   Networking as well as associated functionality.  In addition, a
   number of research challenges are highlighted.  The goal is to
   contribute to a common and shared understanding that can be used as a
   foundation to articulate research and engineering problems in the
   area of Intent-Based Networking.

2.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Definitions and Acronyms

      ACL: Access Control List

      Intent: An abstracted, declarative and vendor agnostic set of
      rules used to provide full lifecycle (Design/Build/Deploy/
      Validate) to a network and services it provides.

      Policy: A rule, or set of rules, that governs the choices in
      behavior of a system.






Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


      SSoT: Single Source of Truth - A functional block in an IBN system
      that normalizes user' intent and serves as the single source of
      data for the lower layers.

      IBA: Intent Based Analytics - Analytics that are defined and
      derived from user' intent and used to validate the intended state.

      PDP: Policy Decision Point

      PEP: Policy Enforcement Point

      Service Model: A model that represents a service that is provided
      by a network to a user.

4.  Introduction of Concepts

   The following section provides an overview of the concept of intent
   respectively intent-based management.  It also provides an overview
   of the related concepts of service models, and of policies
   respectively policy-based management, and explains how they relate to
   intent and intent-based management.

4.1.  Intent and Intent-Based Management

   In the context of Autonomic Networks, Intent is defined as "an
   abstract, high-level policy used to operate a network" [RFC7575].
   According to this definition, an intent is a specific type of policy.
   However, to avoid using "intent" simply as a synonym for "policy, a
   clearer distinction needs to be introduced that distinguishes intent
   clearly from other types of policies.

   For one, while Intent-Based Management clearly aims to lead towards
   networks that are dramatically simpler to manage and operate
   requiring only minimal outside intervention, the concept of "intent"
   is not limited to autonomic networks, but applies to any network.
   Networks, even when considered "autonomic", are not clairvoyant and
   have no way of automatically knowing particular operational goals nor
   what instances of networking services to support.  In other words,
   they do not know what the "intent" of the network provider is that
   gives the network the purpose of its being.  This still needs to be
   communicated by what informally constitutes "intent".

   More specifically, intent is a declaration of operational goals that
   a network should meet and outcomes that the network is supposed to
   deliver, without specifying how to achieve them.  Those goals and
   outcomes are defined in a manner that is purely declarative - they
   specify what to accomplish, not how to achieve it.  "Intent" thus
   applies several important concepts simultaneously:



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   o  It provides data abstraction: Users and operators do not need to
      be concerned with low-level device configuration and nerd knobs.

   o  It provides functional abstraction from particular management and
      control logic: Users and operators do not need to be concerned
      even with how to achieve a given intent.  What is specified is a
      desired outcome, with the intent-based system automatically
      figuring out a course of action (e.g. a set of rules, an
      algorithm) for how to achieve the outcome.

   In an autonomic network, intent should be rendered by the network
   itself, i.e. translated into device-specific rules and courses of
   action.  Ideally, it should not even be orchestrated or broken down
   by a higher-level, centralized system, but by the network devices
   themselves using a combination of distributed algorithms and local
   device abstraction.  Because intent holds for the network as a whole,
   not individual devices, it needs to be automatically disseminated
   across all devices in the network, which can themselves decide
   whether they need to act on it.  This facilitates management even
   further, since it obviates the need for a higher-layer system to
   break down and decompose higher-level intent, and because there is no
   need to even discover and maintain an inventory of the network to be
   able to manage it.

   Tentative definition for intent-based networks Networks configuring
   and adapting autonomously to the user or operator intentions (i.e., a
   desired state or behavior) without the need to specify every
   technical detail of the process and operations to achieve it (i.e.,
   the "machines" will figure out on their own how to realize the user
   goal).

   Other definitions of intent exist such as [TR523] and will be
   investigated in future revisions of this document.  Likewise, some
   definitions of intent allow for the presence of a centralized
   function that renders the intent into lower-level policies or
   instructions and orchestrates them across the network.  While to the
   end user the concept of "intent" appears the same regardless of its
   method of rendering, this interpretation opens a slippery slope of
   how to clearly distinguish "intent" from other higher-layer
   abstractions.  Again, these notions will be further investigated in
   future revisions of this document and in collaboration with NMRG.

4.2.  Related Concepts








Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


4.2.1.  Service Models

   A service model is a model that represents a service that is provided
   by a network to a user.  Per [RFC8309], a service model describes a
   service and its parameters in a portable/vendor agnostic way that can
   be used independent of the equipment and operating environment on
   which the service is realized.  Two subcategories are distinguished:
   a "Customer Service Model" describes an instance of a service as
   provided to a customer, possibly associated with a service order.  A
   "Service Delivery Model" describes how a service is instantiated over
   existing networking infrastructure.

   An example of a service could be a Layer 3 VPN service [RFC8299], a
   Network Slice, or residential Internet access.  Service models
   represent service instances as entities in their own right.  Services
   have their own parameters, actions, and lifecycles.  Typically,
   service instances can be bound to end users, who might be billed for
   the service.

   Instantiating a service typically involves multiple aspects:

   o  A user (or northbound system) needs to define and/or request a
      service to be instantiated.

   o  Resources need to be allocated, such as IP addresses, AS numbers,
      VLAN or VxLAN pools, interfaces, bandwidth, or memory.

   o  How to map services to the resources needs to be defined.
      Multiple mappings are often possible, which to select may depend
      on context (such as which type of access is available to connect
      the end user with the service).

   o  [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] is an example of such
      mapping - a data model to map customer service models (e.g., the
      L3VPM Service Model) to Traffic Engineering (TE) models (e.g., the
      TE Tunnel or the Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
      Networks Virtual Network model)

   o  Bindings need to be maintained between upper and lower-level
      objects.

   o  Once instantiated, the service needs to be validated and assured
      to ensure that the network indeed delivers the service as
      requested.

   They involve a system, such as a controller, that provides
   provisioning logic.  Orchestration itself is generally conducted
   using a "push" model, in which the controller/manager initiates the



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   operations as required, pushing down the specific configurations to
   the device.  (In addition to instantiating and creating new instances
   of a service, updating, modifying, and decommissioning services need
   to be also supported.)  The device itself typically remains agnostic
   to the service or the fact that its resources or configurations are
   part of a service/concept at a higher layer.

   Instantiated service models map to instantiated lower-layer network
   and device models.  Examples include instances of paths, or instances
   of specific port configurations.  The service model typically also
   models dependencies and layering of services over lower-layer
   networking resources that are used to provide services.  This
   facilitates management by allowing to follow dependencies for
   troubleshooting activities, to perform impact analysis in which
   events in the network are assessed regarding their impact on services
   and customers.  Services are typically orchestrated and provisioned
   top-to-bottom, which also facilitates keeping track of the assignment
   of network resources.  Service models might also be associated with
   other data that does not concern the network but provides business
   context.  This includes things such as customer data (such as billing
   information), service orders and service catalogues, tariffs, service
   contracts, and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) including contractual
   agreements regarding remediation actions.

   Like intent, service models provide higher layers of abstraction.
   Service models are often also complemented with mappings that capture
   dependencies between service and device or network configurations.
   Unlike intent, service models do not allow to define a desired
   "outcome" that would be automatically maintained by the intent
   system.  Instead, management of service models requires development
   of sophisticated algorithms and control logic by network providers or
   system integrators.

4.2.2.  Policy and Policy-Based Management

   Policy-based management (PBM) is a management paradigm that separates
   the rules that govern the behavior of a system from the functionality
   of the system.  It promises to reduce maintenance costs of
   information and communication systems while improving flexibility and
   runtime adaptability.  It is present today at the heart of a
   multitude of management architectures and paradigms including SLA-
   driven, Business-driven, autonomous, adaptive, and self-* management
   [Boutaba07].  The interested reader is asked to refer to the rich set
   of existing literature which includes this and many other references.
   In the following, we will only provide a much-abridged and distilled
   overview.





Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   At the heart of policy-based management is the concept of a policy.
   Multiple definitions of policy exist: "Policies are rules governing
   the choices in behavior of a system" [Sloman94].  "Policy is a set of
   rules that are used to manage and control the changing and/or
   maintaining of the state of one or more managed objects"
   [Strassner03].  Common to most definitions is the definition of a
   policy as a "rule".  Typically, the definition of a rule consists of
   an event (whose occurrence triggers a rule), a set of conditions
   (that get assessed and that must be true before any actions are
   actually "fired"), and finally a set of one or more actions that are
   carried out when the condition holds.

   Policy-based management can be considered an imperative management
   paradigm: Policies specify precisely what needs to be done when and
   in which circumstance.  Using policies, management can in effect be
   defined as a set of simple control loops.  This makes policy-based
   management a suitable technology to implement autonomic behavior that
   can exhibit self-* management properties including self-
   configuration, self-healing, self-optimization, and self-protection.
   In effect, policies define management as a set of simple control
   loops.

   Policies typically involve a certain degree of abstraction in order
   to cope with heterogeneity of networking devices.  Rather than having
   a device-specific policy that defines events, conditions, and actions
   in terms of device-specific commands, parameters, and data models,
   policy is defined at a higher-level of abstraction involving a
   canonical model of systems and devices to which the policy is to be
   applied.  A policy agent on a controller or the device subsequently
   "renders" the policy, i.e., translates the canonical model into a
   device-specific representation.  This concept allows to apply the
   same policy across a wide range of devices without needing to define
   multiple variants.  In other words - policy definition is de-coupled
   from policy instantiation and policy enforcement.  This enables
   operational scale and allows network operators and authors of
   policies to think in higher terms of abstraction than device
   specifics and be able to reuse the same, high level definition
   defintion across different networking domains, WAN, DC or public
   cloud.

   Policy-based management is typically "push-based": Policies are
   pushed onto devices where they are rendered and enforced.  The push
   operations are conducted by a manager or controller, which is
   responsible for deploying policies across the network and monitor
   their proper operation.  That said, other policy architectures are
   possible.  For example, policy-based management can also include a
   pull-component in which the decision regarding which action to take
   is delegated to a so-called Policy Decision Point (PDP).  This PDP



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   can reside outside the managed device itself and has typically global
   visibility and context with which to make policy decisions.  Whenever
   a network device observes an event that is associated with a policy,
   but lacks the full definition of the policy or the ability to reach a
   conclusion regarding the expected action, it reaches out to the PDP
   for a decision (reached, for example, by deciding on an action based
   on various conditions).  Subsequently, the device carries out the
   decision as returned by the PDP - the device "enforces" the policy
   and hence acts as a PEP (Policy Enforcement Point).  Either way, PBM
   architectures typically involve a central component from which
   policies are deployed across the network, and/or policy decisions
   served.

   Like Intent, policies provide a higher layer of abstraction.  Policy
   systems are also able to capture dynamic aspects of the system under
   management through specification of rules that allow to define
   various triggers for certain courses of actions.  Unlike intent, the
   definition of those rules (and courses of actions) still needs to be
   articulated by users.  Since the intent is unknown, conflict
   resolution within or between policies requires interactions with a
   user or some kind of logic that resides outside of PBM.

4.2.3.  Distinguishing between Intent, Policy, and Service Models

   What Intent, Policy, and Service Models all have in common is the
   fact that they involve a higher-layer of abstraction of a network
   that does not involve device-specifics, that generally transcends
   individual devices, and that makes the network easier to manage for
   applications and human users compared to having to manage the network
   one device at a time.  Beyond that, differences emerge.  Service
   models have less in common with policy and intent than policy and
   intent do with each other.

   Summarized differences:

   o  A service model is a data model that is used to describe instances
      of services that are provided to customers.  A service model has
      dependencies on lower level models (device and network models)
      when describing how the service is mapped onto underlying network
      and IT infrastructure.  Instantiating a service model requires
      orchestration by a system; the logic for how to
      orchestrate/manage/provide the service model, and how to map it
      onto underlying resources, is not included as part of the model
      itself.

   o  Policy is a set of rules, typically modeled around a variation of
      events/conditions/actions, used to express simple control loops
      that can be rendered by devices themselves, without requiring



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


      intervention by outside system.  Policy lets users define what to
      do under what circumstances, but it does not specify a desired
      outcome.

   o  Intent is a higher-level declarative policy that operates at the
      level of a network and services it provides, not individual
      devices.  It is used to define outcomes and high-level operational
      goals, without the need to enumerate specific events, conditions,
      and actions.  Which algorithm or rules to apply can be
      automatically "learned/derived from intent" by the intent system.
      In the context of autonomic networking, ideally, intent is
      rendered by the network itself; also the dissemination of intent
      across the network and any required coordination between nodes is
      resolved by the network itself without the need for outside
      systems.

   One analogy to capture the difference between policy and intent
   systems is that of Expert Systems and Learning Systems in the field
   of Artificial Intelligence.  Expert Systems operate on knowledge
   bases with rules that are supplied by users.  They are able to make
   automatic inferences based on those rules, but are not able to
   "learn" on their own.  Learning Systems (popularized by deep learning
   and neural networks), on the other hand, are able to learn without
   depending on user programming.  However, they do require a learning
   or training phase and explanations of actions that the system
   actually takes provide a different set of challenges.

5.  Principles

   The following operating principles allow characterizing the intent-
   based/-driven/-defined nature of a system.

   1.  Single Source of Truth (SSoT) and Single Version/View of Truth
       (SVoT).  The SSoT is an essential component of an intent-based
       system as it enables several important operations.  The set of
       validated intent expressions is the system's SSoT.  SSoT and the
       records of the operational states enable comparing the intented
       state and actual state of the system and determining drift
       between them.  SsoT and the drift information provide the basis
       for corrective actions.  If the intent-based is equipped with
       prediction capabilities or means, it can further develop
       strategies to anticipate, plan and pro-actively act on the
       diverging trends with the aim to minimize their impact.  Beyond
       providing a means for consistent system operation, SSoT also
       allows for better traceability to validate if/how the initial
       intent and associated business goals have been properly met, to
       evaluate the impacts of changes in the intent parameters and
       impacts and effects of the events occurring in the system.



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


       Single Version (or View) of Truth derives from the SSoT and can
       be used to perform other operations such as query, poll or filter
       the measured and correlated information to create so-called
       "views".  These views can serve the operators and/or the users of
       the intent-based system.  To create intents as single sources of
       truth, the intent-based system must follow well-specified and
       well-documented processes and models.  In other contexts
       [Lenrow15], SSoT is also referred to as the invariance of the
       intent.

   2.  One touch but not one shot.  In an ideal intent-based system, the
       user expresses its intents in one form or another and then the
       system takes over all subsequent operations (one touch).  A zero-
       touch approach could also be imagined in case where the intent-
       based system has the capabilities or means to recognize
       intentions in any form of data.  However, the zero- or one-touch
       approach should not be mistaken the fact that reaching the state
       of a well-formed and valid intent expression is not a one-shot
       process.  On the contrary, the interfacing between the user and
       the intent-based system could be designed as an interactive and
       interactive process.  Depending on the level of abstraction, the
       intent expressions will initially contain more or less implicit
       parts, and unprecise or unknown parameters and constraints.  The
       role of the intent-based system is to parse, understand and
       refine the intent expression to reach a well-formed and valid
       intent expression that can be further used by the system for the
       fulfillment and assurance operations.  An intent refinement
       process could use a combination of iterative steps involving the
       user to validate the proposed refined intent and to ask the user
       for clarifications in case some parameters or variables could not
       be deduced or learned by the means of the system itself.  In
       addition, the Intent-Based System will need to moderate between
       conflicting intent, helping users to properly choose between
       intent alternatives that may have different ramifications.

   3.  Autonomy and Oversight.  A desirable goal for an intent-based
       system is to offer a high degree of flexibility and freedom on
       both the user side and system side, e.g. by giving the user the
       ability to express intents using its own terms, by supporting
       different forms of expression of intents and being capable of
       refining the intent expressions to well-formed and exploitable
       expressions.  The dual principle of autonomy and oversight allows
       to operate a system that will have the necessary levels of
       autonomy to conduct its tasks and operations without requiring
       intervention of the user and taking its own decisions (within its
       areas of concern and span of control) as how to perform and meet
       the user expiations in terms of performance and quality, while at
       the same time providing the proper level of oversight to satisfy



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


       the user requirements for reporting and escalation of relevant
       information.  to be added: description for feedback, reporting,
       guarantee scope (check points, guard rails, dynamically
       provisioned, context rich, regular operation vs. exception/
       abnormal, information zoom in-out, and link to SVoT.  Accountable
       for decisions and efficiency, late binding (leave it to the
       system where to place functionality, how to accomplish certain
       goals).

   4.  Learning.  An intent-based system is a learning system.  By
       contrast to imperative type of system, such as Event-Condition-
       Action policy rules, where the user define beforehand the
       expected behavior of the system to various event and conditions,
       in an intent-based system, the user only declare what the system
       should achieve and not how to achieve these goals.  There is thus
       a transfer of reasoning/rationality from the human (domain
       knowledge) to the system.  This transfer of cognitive capability
       implies also the availability in the intent-based system of
       capabilities or means for learning, reasoning and knowledge
       representation and management.  The learning abilities of an
       intent-based systems can apply to different tasks such as
       optimization of the intent rendering or intent refinement
       processes.  The fact that an intent-based system is a
       continuously evolving system creates the condition for continuous
       learning and optimization.  Other cognitive capabilities such as
       planning can also be leveraged in an intent-based system to
       anticipate or forecast future system state and response to
       changes in intents or network conditions and thus elaboration of
       plans to accommodate the changes while preserving system
       stability and efficiency in a trade-off with cost and robustness
       of operations.  Cope with unawareness of users (smart
       recommendations).

   5.  Explainability.  Need expressive network capabilities,
       requirements and constraints to be able to compose/decompose
       intents, map user's expectation to system capabilities.
       capability exposure.  not just automation of steps that need to
       be taken, but of bridging the semantic gap between "intent" and
       actionable levels of instructions Context: multi providers, need
       discovery and semantic descriptions Explainability: why is a
       network doing what it is doing

   6.  Abstraction - users do not need to be concerned with how intent
       is achieved

   Additional principles will be described in future revision of this
   document addressing aspects such as: Target groups not individual
   devices, agnostic to implementation details, user-friendly, user



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   vocabulary vs. language of the device/network, explainability,
   validation and troubleshooting, how to resolve and point out
   conflicts (between intents), reconcile the reality of what is
   possible with the fiction of what the user would want, "moderate",
   awareness of operating within system boundaries, outcome-driven
   ((what not how, for the user);(what and how/where, for the
   operator).not imperative/instruction based.).

   The above principles will be further used to understand implications
   on the design of intent-based systems and their supporting
   architecture, and derive functional and operational requirements.

6.  Lifecycle






































Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


          user related                    user data <-----<-+--------+
          data  +                          +                |        |
                |                          |                |        |
           +----v------+             +-----v-----+          |        |
           | recognize +---+   +-----+ generate  |          |        |
     user  +-----------+   |   |     +-----------+          |        |
     space                 |   |                            |        |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
     system                |   |                            |        |
     space             +---v---v---+   +----------+   +-----+-----+  |
                       | translate <-->+ validate <---> recommend |  |
                       +-----+-----+   +----------+   +-----------+  |
                             |                                       |
                       +-----v-----+                                 |
                       | normalize |                                 |
                       +-----+-----+                                 |
                             |                                       |
                       +-----v-----+                                 |
                       | decompose |                                 |
                       +-----+-----+                                 |
                             |                                       |
                      +------v------+                                |
                      | communicate |                                |
                      +------+------+                                |
      preparation            |                                       |
      phase                  |                                       |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
      operation              |                                       |
      phase            +-----v----+                                  |
                       | fullfill |                                  |
                       +-----+----+                                  |
                             |                                       |
                        +----v----+     +--------+                   |
                        | observe +-----> report +-------------------+
                        +----+----+     +--------+
                             |
                        +----v---+
                        | assure |
                        +--------+




                        Figure 1: Intent Lifecycle

   The intent lifecycle is work in progress.  Todo: Intent attributes,
   intent states.  Distinguish flow from users to network, and from
   network to user.



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   Another version is depicted below.  Some of the aspects worth
   highlighting:

   o  There is a distinction between the traditional network operations
      realm on one hand (providing fulfillment and assurance functions),
      and the user realm on the other hand (who needs to give direction
      to the network and be given information and reports regarding how
      the network is doing.  Intent-Based Systems provide the link
      between those two realms.

   o  There is a genuine distinction between fulfillment operations,
      used to drive intent into the network, orchestrate configuration
      operations etc, aand assurance operations intended to gain a sense
      of whether the network is performing as intended.



          User Space   :       Translation / IBS        :   Network Ops
                       :            Space               :       Space
                       :                                :
         +---------+   :  +----------+   +-----------+  :   +---------+
 Fulfill |recognize| ---> |translate/|-->|learn/plan/| ---> | config/ |
         |intent   | <--- |  refine  |   |  render   |  :   |provision|
         +---------+   :  +----------+   +-----^-----+  :   +---------+
                       :                       |        :         |
 ..............................................|..................|.....
                       :                  +----+---+    :         v
                       :                  |validate|    :   +----------+
                       :                  +----^---+ <------| monitor/ |
 Assure   +-------+    :  +---------+    +-----+---+    :   | observe/ |
          |report | <---- |abstract |<---| analyze | <------|  assure  |
          +-------+    :  +---------+    |aggregate|    :   +----------+
                       :                 +---------+    :


                       Figure 2: Intent Lifecycle 2

7.  Intent-Based Networking - Functionality

   Intent-Based Networking involves a wide variety of functions which
   can be roughly divided into two categories:

   o  Intent Fulfillment provides functions and interfaces that allow
      users to communicate intent to the network, and that orchestrates
      the intent, i.e. that breaks down intent abstractions into lower-
      level network and device abstractions and performs or coordinates
      the configuration operations across the network.




Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   o  Intent Assurance provides functions and interfaces that allow
      users to validate and monitor that the network is indeed adhering
      to and complying with intent.  Control plane or lower-level
      management operations can cause behavior that inadvertently
      conflicts with intent which was orchestrated earlier.
      Accordingly, "intent drift" may occur.  Network operators need to
      be able to detect when such drift occurs, or is about to occur,
      and be provided with the necessary functions to resolve such
      conflicts.  This can occur by either bringing the network back
      into compliance, or by articulating modifications to the original
      intent to moderate between conflicting interests.

   The following sections provide a more comprehensive overview of those
   functions.

7.1.  Intent Fulfillment

   RBD

7.2.  Intent Assurance

   Ability to reason about system' state by employing closed-loop
   validation in the presence of an inevitable change is a fundamental
   property of an Intent Assurance part of an IBN system.  Since service
   expectations are created during intent consumption and modeling
   phase, closed-loop intent vaidation should start immidiatelly, with
   the service instantiation.  Telemetry consumed could then be enriched
   with an additional context and must always be processed in context of
   the Intent it has been instantiated.  Direct relationship between the
   Intent and telemetry gathered enables correlation between changes in
   states and the Intent and provides contextual base for reasoning
   about the changes.

8.  Research Challenges

8.1.  Intent Interfaces

   One goal for intent-based systems is to have the system "infer" the
   intent of the user, rather than requiring the users to provide a
   precise and complete set of instructions.  Instead of forcing users
   to speak the language of the system, the system should be able to
   adapt to the needs of the user.

   This requires new ways of interacting with users.  An intent
   interface may no longer necessarily involve an interface or API with
   a clearly defined syntax and set of parameters.  Instead, it may
   apply alternative styles, for example of iterative interrogation- or
   interview-style interfaces in which the system requests additional



Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   information from the user as needed to provide clarification, to
   select between alternatives, to refine intent.

8.2.  Explanation Component

   In an Intent-Based System, some of the actions taken by the network
   or behavior observed may be difficult to understand, analogous to
   deep learning systems which may have difficulty explaining their
   actions.  In a networking environment, this can create some problems
   of its own, such as ensuring that the system is indeed functioning
   correctly and not compromised, necessary to give network providers
   the confidence that the Intent-Based Systems can indeed be relied on
   in business-critical applications.

8.3.  IBN Metrics to Guide Desired Outcomes

   As Intent-Based Networks are driven by desired outcomes, how to
   assess the quality of expected outcomes becomes critical.
   Corresponding metrics and evaluation functions become the basis by
   which IBNs can choose between different alternatives, and assess
   their ability to "learn" and make progress.

9.  Items for Discussion

   Arguably, given the popularity of the term intent, its use could be
   broadened to encompass also known concepts ("intent-washing").  For
   example, it is conceivable to introduce intent-based terms for
   various concepts that, although already known, are related to the
   context of intent.  Each of those terms could then designate an
   intent subcategory, for example:

   o  Operational Intent: defines intent related to operational goals of
      an operator; corresponds to the original "intent" term.

   o  Rule Intent: a synonym for policy rules regarding what to do when
      certain events occur.

   o  Service intent: a synonym for customer service model [RFC8309].

   o  Flow Intent: A synonym for a Service Level Objective for a given
      flow.

   Whether to do so is an item for discussion by the Research Group.








Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


10.  IANA Considerations

   Not applicable

11.  Security Considerations

   Not applicable

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [Boutaba07]
              Boutaba, R. and I. Aib, "Policy-Based Management: A
              Historical perspective. Journal of Network and Systems
              Management (JNSM), Springer, Vol. 15 (4).", December 2007.

   [eTOM]     TMForum, "GB 921 Business Process Framework, Release
              17.0.1.", February 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]
              Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., Tantsura, J.,
              Fioccola, G., and Q. Wu, "Traffic Engineering and Service
              Mapping Yang Model", draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-
              yang-01 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [Lenrow15]
              Lenrow, D., "Intent As The Common Interface to Network
              Resources, Intent Based Network Summit 2015 ONF Boulder:
              IntentNBI", February 2015.

   [RFC7575]  Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
              Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.




Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   [RFC8299]  Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
              "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.

   [RFC8309]  Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
              Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8309>.

   [RFC8345]  Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
              Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
              Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.

   [Sloman94]
              Sloman, M., "Policy Driven Management for Distributed
              Systems. Journal of Network and Systems Management (JNSM),
              Springer, Vol. 2 (4).", December 1994.

   [Strassner03]
              Strassner, J., "Policy-Based Network Management.
              Elsevier.", 2003.

   [TR523]    Foundation, O. N., "Intent NBI - Definition and
              Principles. ONF TR-523.", October 2016.

Authors' Addresses

   Alexander Clemm
   Futurewei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara,  CA 95050
   USA

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org


   Laurent Ciavaglia
   Nokia
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay  91460
   FR

   Email: laurent.ciavaglia@nokia.com







Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2019


   Lisandro Zambenedetti Granville
   Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
   Av. Bento Goncalves
   Porto Alegre  9500
   BR

   Email: granville@inf.ufrgs.br


   Jeff Tantsura
   Apstra, Inc.

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com






































Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/