Delay-Tolerant Networking                                     E. Birrane
Internet-Draft                  Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
Intended status: Informational                          October 30, 2017
Expires: May 3, 2018

                  Asynchronous Management Architecture


   This document describes an asynchronous management architecture (AMA)
   suitable for providing application-level network management services
   in a challenged networking environment.  Challenged networks are
   those that require fault protection, configuration, and performance
   reporting while unable to provide humans-in-the-loop with synchronous
   feedback or otherwise preserve transport-layer sessions.  In such a
   context, networks must exhibit behavior that is both determinable and
   autonomous while maintaining compatibility with existing network
   management protocols and operational concepts.

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

   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 May 3, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Organization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Challenged Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Current Approaches and Their Limitations  . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Autonomous Parameterized Procedure Calls  . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Administration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Desirable Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Intelligent Push of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Minimize Message Size Not Node Processing . . . . . . . .  12
     5.3.  Absolute Data Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.4.  Custom Data Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  Autonomous Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Roles and Responsibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Agent Responsibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  Manager Responsibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Logical Data Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  EDDs, VARs, and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  Controls and Macros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.3.  Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.4.  Operators and Literals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  System Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.1.  Control and Data Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.2.  Control Flow by Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       8.2.1.  Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       8.2.2.  Serialized Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       8.2.3.  Multiplexed Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       8.2.4.  Data Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

1.  Introduction

   The Asynchronous Management Architecture (AMA) provides application-
   layer network management services over links where delivery delays
   prevent timely communications between a network operator and a
   managed device.  These delays may be caused by long signal
   propagations or frequent link disruptions (such as described in
   [RFC4838]) or by non-environmental factors such as unavailability of
   network operators, administrative delays, or delays caused by
   quality-of-service prioritizations and service-level agreements.

1.1.  Purpose

   This document describes the motivation, service definitions,
   desirable properties, roles/responsibilities, system model, and
   logical data model that form the AMA.  These descriptions should be
   of sufficient specificity that implementations conformant to this
   architecture will operate successfully in a challenged networking

   This document is not a prescriptive standardization of a physical
   data model or protocol.  Instead, it serves as informative guidance
   to authors of such models and protocols.

   An AMA is necessary as the assumptions inherent to the architecture
   and design of synchronous management tools and techniques are not
   valid in challenged network scenarios.  In these scenarios,
   synchronous approaches either patiently wait for periods of bi-
   directional connectivity or require the investment of significant
   time and resources to evolve a challenged network into a well-
   connected, low-latency network.  In some cases such evolution is
   merely a costly way to over-resource a network.  In other cases, such
   evolution is impossible given physical limitations imposed by signal
   propagation delays, power, transmission technologies, and other
   phenomena.  Asynchronous management of asynchronous networks enables
   large-scale deployments, distributed technical capabilities, and
   reduced deployment and operations costs.

   The rationale and motivation for asynchronous management is captured
   in [BIRRANE1], [BIRRANE2],[BIRRANE3].  The properties and feasibility
   of such a system are taken from prototyping work done in accordance
   with [I-D.irtf-dtnrg-dtnmp].

1.2.  Scope

   It is assumed that any challenged network where network management
   would be usefully applied supports basic services (where necessary)
   such as naming, addressing, integrity, confidentiality,

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   authentication, fragmentation, and traditional network/session layer
   functions.  Therefore, these items are outside of the scope of the
   AMA and not covered in this document.

   While possible that a challenged network may interface with an
   unchallenged network, this document does not address the concept of
   network management compatibility with synchronous approaches.

1.3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.4.  Organization

   The remainder of this document is organized into seven sections that,
   together, describe an AMA suitable for enterprise management of
   asynchronous networks: terminology, motivation, service definitions,
   desirable properties, roles/responsibilities, logical data model, and
   system model.  The description of each section is as follows.

   o  Terminology - This section identifies those terms critical to
      understanding the proper operation of the AMA.  Whenever possible,
      these terms align in both word selection and meaning with their
      analogs from other management protocols.

   o  Motivation - This section provides an overall motivation for this
      work as providing a novel and useful alternative to current
      network management approaches.  Specifically, this section
      describes common network functions and how synchronous mechanisms
      fail to provide these functions in an asynchronous environment.

   o  Service Definitions - This section defines asynchronous network
      management services in terms of terminology, scope, and impact.

   o  Desirable Properties - This section identifies the properties to
      which an asynchronous management system should adhere to
      effectively implement service definitions in an asynchronous
      environment.  These properties guide the subsequent definition of
      the system and logical models that comprise the AMA.

   o  Roles and Responsibilities - This section identifies the roles in
      the AMA and their associated responsibilities.  It provides the
      terminology and context for discussing how network management
      services interact.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   o  Logical Data Model - This section describes the kinds of data that
      should be represented in deployment asynchronous management

   o  System Model - This section describes data flows amongst various
      defined Actor roles.  These flows capture how the AMA system works
      to provide asynchronous network management services in accordance
      with defined desirable properties.

2.  Terminology

   o  Actor - A software service running on either managed or managing
      devices for the purpose of implementing management protocols
      between such devices.  Actors may implement the "Manager" role,
      "Agent" role, or both.

   o  Agent Role (or Agent) - The role associated with a managed device,
      responsible for reporting performance data, enforcing
      administrative policies, and accepting/performing actions.  Agents
      exchange information with Managers operating either on the same
      device or on a remote managing device.

   o  Externally Defined Data (EDD) - Information made available to an
      Agent by a managed device, but not computed directly by the Agent.

   o  Variable (VAR) - Information that is computed by an Agent,
      typically as a function of EDD values and/or other Variables.

   o  Controls (CTRLs) - Operations that may be undertaken by an Actor
      to change the behavior, configuration, or state of an application
      or protocol managed by an AMP.

   o  Literals (LIT) - Constants, enumerations, and other immutable

   o  Macros - A named, ordered collection of Controls.

   o  Manager - A role associated with a managing device responsible for
      configuring the behavior of, and receiving information from,
      Agents.  Managers interact with one or more Agents located on the
      same device and/or on remote devices in the network.

   o  Operator (OP) - The enumeration and specification of a
      mathematical function used to calculate computed data definitions
      and construct expressions to calculate state.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   o  Report (RPT) - A named, typed, ordered collection of data values
      gathered by one or more Agents and provided to one or more

   o  Rule - A unit of autonomous specification that provides a
      stimulus-response relationship between time or state on an Agent
      and the Controls to be run as a result of that time or state.

3.  Motivation

   Challenged networks, to include networks challenged by administrative
   or policy delays, cannot guarantee capabilities required to enable
   synchronous management techniques.  These capabilities include high-
   rate, highly-available data, round-trip data exchange, and operators
   "in-the-loop".  The inability of current approaches to provide
   network management services in a challenged network motivates the
   need for a new network management architecture focused on
   asynchronous, open-loop, autonomous control of network components.

3.1.  Challenged Networks

   A growing variety of link-challenged networks support packetization
   to increase data communications reliability without otherwise
   guaranteeing a simultaneous end-to-end path.  Examples of such
   networks include Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks (MANets), Vehicular Ad-Hoc
   Networks (VANets), Space-Terrestrial Internetworks (STINTs), and
   heterogeneous networking overlays.  Links in such networks are often
   unavailable due to attenuations, propagation delays, occultation, and
   other limitations imposed by energy and mass considerations.  Data
   communications in such networks rely on store-and-forward and other
   queuing strategies to wait for the connectivity necessary to usefully
   advance a packet along its route.

   Similarly, there also exist well-resourced networks that incur high
   message delivery delays due to non-environmental limitations.  For
   example, networks whose operations centers are understaffed or where
   data volume and management requirements exceed the real-time
   cognitive load of operators or the associated operations console
   software support.  Also, networks where policy restricts user access
   to existing bandwidth creates situations functionally similar to link
   disruption and delay.

   Independent of the reason, when a node experiences an inability to
   communicate it must rely on autonomous mechanisms to ensure its safe
   operation and ability to usefully re-join the network at a later
   time.  In cases of sparsely-populated networks, there may never be a
   practical concept of "the connected network" as most nodes may be
   disconnected most of the time.  In such environments, defining a

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   network in terms of instantaneous connectivity becomes impractical or

   Specifically, challenged networks exhibit the following properties
   that may violate assumptions built into current approaches to
   synchronous network management.

   o  Links may be uni-directional.

   o  Bi-directional links may have asymmetric data rates.

   o  No end-to-end path is guaranteed to exist at any given time
      between any two nodes.

   o  Round-trip communications between any two nodes within any given
      time window may be impossible.

3.2.  Current Approaches and Their Limitations

   Network management tools in unchallenged networks provide mechanisms
   for communicating locally-collected data from Agents to Managers,
   typically using a "pull" mechanism where data must be explicitly
   requested by a Manager in order to be transmitted by an Agent.

   Management approaches that rely on timely data exchange, such as
   those that rely on negotiated sessions or other synchronized
   acknowledgment, do not function in challenged network environments.
   Familiar examples of TCP/IP based management via closed-loop,
   synchronous messaging do not work when network disruptions increase
   in frequency and severity.  While no protocol delivers data in the
   absence of a networking link, protocols that eliminate or drastically
   reduce overhead and end-point coordination require smaller
   transmission windows and continue to function when confronted with
   scaling delays and disruptions in the network.

   A legacy method for management in unchallenged networks today is the
   Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3416].  SNMP utilizes a
   request/response model to set and retrieve data values such as host
   identifiers, link utilizations, error rates, and counters between
   application software on Agents and Managers.  Data may be directly
   sampled or consolidated into representative statistics.
   Additionally, SNMP supports a model for asynchronous notification
   messages, called traps, based on predefined triggering events.  Thus,
   Managers can query Agents for status information, send new
   configurations, and be informed when specific events have occurred.
   Traps and queryable data are defined in one or more Managed
   Information Bases (MIBs) which define the information for a
   particular data standard, protocol, device, or application.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   While there is a large installation base for SNMP there are several
   aspects of the protocol that make in inappropriate for use in a
   challenged networking environment.  SNMP relies on sessions with low
   round-trip latency to support its "pull" model.  The SNMP trap model
   provides some Agent-side processing, but with very low fidelity and
   traps are typically "fire and forget" requiring the underlying
   transport to support reliable, in-order message delivery.  Adaptive
   modifications to SNMP to support challenged networks would alter the
   basic function of the protocol (data models, control flows, and
   syntax) so as to be functionally incompatible with existing SNMP
   installations.  Therefore, this approach is not suitable for an
   asynchronous network management system.

   The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides device-level
   configuration capabilities [RFC6241] to replace vendor-specific
   command line interface (CLI) configuration software.  The XML-based
   protocol provides a remote procedure call (RPC) syntax such that any
   exposed functionality on an Agent can be exercised via a software
   application interface.  NETCONF places no specific functional
   requirements or constraints on the capabilities of the Agent, which
   makes it a very flexible tool for configuring a homogeneous network
   of devices.

   NETCONF places specific constraints on any underlying transport
   protocol: a long-lived, reliable, low-latency sequenced data delivery
   session.  This is a fundamental requirement given the RPC-nature of
   the operating concept, and it is unsustainable in a challenged
   network.  Aspects of the data modeling associated with NETCONF may
   apply to an asynchronous network management system, such that some
   modeling tools may be used, even if the network control plane cannot.

   Just as the concept of a loosely-confederated set of nodes changes
   the definition of a network, it also changes the operational concept
   of what it means to manage a network.  When a network stops being a
   single entity exhibiting a single behavior, "network management"
   becomes large-scale "node management".  Individual nodes must share
   the burden of implementing desirable behavior without reliance on a
   single oracle of configuration or other coordinating function such as
   an operator-in-the-loop.

4.  Service Definitions

   This section identifies the services that must exist between Managers
   and Agents within an AMA.  These services include configuration,
   reporting, parameterized control, and administration.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

4.1.  Configuration

   Configuration services update Agent data associated with managed
   applications and protocols.  Some configuration data might be defined
   in the context of an application or protocol, such that any network
   using that application or protocol would understand that data.  Other
   configuration data may be defined tactically for use in a specific
   network deployment and not available to other networks even if they
   use the same applications or protocols.

   New configurations received by an Agent must be validated to ensure
   that they do not conflict with other configurations or would
   otherwise prevent the Agent from effectively working with other
   Actors in its region.  With no guarantee of round-trip data exchange,
   Agents cannot rely on remote Managers to correct erroneous or stale
   configurations from harming the flow of data through a challenged

   Examples of configuration service behavior include the following.

   o  Creating a new datum as a function of other well-known data:
      C = A + B.

   o  Creating a new report as a unique, ordered collection of known
      RPT = {A, B, C}.

   o  Storing predefined, parameterized responses to potential future
      IF (X > 3) THEN RUN CMD(PARM).

4.2.  Reporting

   Reporting services populate report templates with values collected or
   computed by an Agent.  The resultant reports are sent to one or more
   Managers by the Agent.  The term "reporting" is used in place of the
   term "monitoring", as monitoring implies a timeliness and regularity
   that cannot be guaranteed by a challenged network.  Reports sent by
   an Agent provide best-effort information to receiving Managers.

   Since a Manager is not actively "monitoring" an Agent, the Agent must
   make its own determination on when to send what Reports based on its
   own local time and state information.  Agents should produce Reports
   of varying fidelity and with varying frequency based on thresholds
   and other information set as part of configuration services.

   Examples of reporting service behavior include the following.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   o  Generate Report R1 every hour (time-based production).

   o  Generate Report R2 when X > 3 (state-based production).

4.3.  Autonomous Parameterized Procedure Calls

   Similar to an RPC call, some mechanism MUST exist to allow a
   procedure to be run on an Agent to effect behavior or otherwise
   change the Agent's internal state.  Since there is no guarantee that
   a Manager will be in contact with an Agent at any given time, the
   decisions of whether and when a procedure should be run MUST be made
   locally and autonomously by the Agent.  Two types of automation
   triggers are identified in the AMA: triggers based on the general
   state of the Agent and triggers based on an Agent's notion of time.
   As such, the autonomous execution of procedures can be viewed as a
   stimulus-response system, where the stimulus is the positive
   evaluation of a state or time based predicate and the response is the
   function to be executed.

   The autonomous nature of procedure execution by an Agent implies that
   the full suite of information necessary to run a procedure may not be
   known by a Manager in advance.  To address this situation, a
   parameterization mechanism MUST be available so that required data
   can be provided at the time of execution on the Agent rather than at
   the time of definition/configuration by the Manager.

   Autonomous, parameterized procedure calls provide a powerful
   mechanism for Managers to "manage" an Agent asynchronously during
   periods of no communication by pre-configuring responses to events
   that may be encountered by the Agent at a future time.

   Examples of potential behavior include the following.

   o  Updating local routing information based on instantaneous link

   o  Managing storage on the device to enforce quotas.

   o  Applying or modifying local security policy.

4.4.  Administration

   Administration services enforce the potentially complex mapping of
   configuration, reporting, and control services amongst Agents and
   Managers in the network.  Fine-grained access control specifying
   which Managers may apply which services to which Agents may be
   necessary in networks dealing with multiple administrative entities
   or overlay networks crossing multiple administrative boundaries.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   Whitelists, blacklists, key-based infrastructures, or other schemes
   may be used for this purpose.

   Examples of administration service behavior include the following.

   o  Agent A1 only Sends reports for Protocol P1 to Manager M1.

   o  Agent A2 only accepts a configurations for Application Y from
      Managers M2 and M3.

   o  Agent A3 accepts services from any Manager providing the proper
      authentication token.

   Note that the administrative enforcement of access control is
   different from security services provided by the networking stack
   carrying AMP messages.

5.  Desirable Properties

   This section describes those design properties that are desirable
   when defining an architecture that must operate across challenged
   links in a network.  These properties ensure that network management
   capabilities are retained even as delays and disruptions in the
   network scale.  Ultimately, these properties are the driving design
   principles for the AMA.

5.1.  Intelligent Push of Information

   Pull management mechanisms require that a Manager send a query to an
   Agent and then wait for the response to that query.  This practice
   implies a control-session between entities and increases the overall
   message traffic in the network.  Challenged networks cannot guarantee
   timely roundtrip data-exchange and, in extreme cases, are comprised
   solely of uni-directional links.  Therefore, pull mechanisms must be
   avoided in favor of push mechanisms.

   Push mechanisms, in this context, refer to Agents making their own
   determinations relating to the information that should be sent to
   Managers.  Such mechanisms do not require round-trip communications
   as Managers do not request each reporting instance; Managers need
   only request once, in advance, that information be produced in
   accordance with a predetermined schedule or in response to a
   predefined state on the Agent.  In this way information is "pushed"
   from Agents to Managers and the push is "intelligent" because it is
   based on some internal evaluation performed by the Agent.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

5.2.  Minimize Message Size Not Node Processing

   Protocol designers must balance message size versus message
   processing time at sending and receiving nodes.  Verbose
   representations of data simplify node processing whereas compact
   representations require additional activities to generate/parse the
   compacted message.  There is no asynchronous management advantage to
   minimizing node processing time in a challenged network.  However,
   there is a significant advantage to smaller message sizes in such
   networks.  Compact messages require smaller periods of viable
   transmission for communication, incur less re-transmission cost, and
   consume less resources when persistently stored en-route in the
   network.  AMPs should minimize PDUs whenever practical, to include
   packing and unpacking binary data, variable-length fields, and pre-
   configured data definitions.

5.3.  Absolute Data Identification

   Elements within the management system must be uniquely identifiable
   so that they can be individually manipulated.  Identification schemes
   that are relative to system configuration make data exchange between
   Agents and Managers difficult as system configurations may change
   faster than nodes can communicate.

   Consider the following common technique for approximating an
   associative array lookup.  A manager wishing to do an associative
   lookup for some key K1 will (1) query a list of array keys from the
   agent, (2) find the key that matches K1 and infer the index of K1
   from the returned key list, and (3) query the discovered index on the
   agent to retrieve the desired data.

   Ignoring the inefficiency of two pull requests, this mechanism fails
   when the Agent changes its key-index mapping between the first and
   second query.  Rather than constructing an artificial mapping from K1
   to an index, an AMP must provide an absolute mechanism to lookup the
   value K1 without an abstraction between the Agent and Manager.

5.4.  Custom Data Definition

   Custom definition of new data from existing data (such as through
   data fusion, averaging, sampling, or other mechanisms) provides the
   ability to communicate desired information in as compact a form as
   possible.  Specifically, an Agent should not be required to transmit
   a large data set for a Manager that only wishes to calculate a
   smaller, inferred data set.  The Agent should calculate the smaller
   data set on its own and transmit that instead.  Since the
   identification of custom data sets is likely to occur in the context

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   of a specific network deployment, AMPs must provide a mechanism for
   their definition.

5.5.  Autonomous Operation

   AMA network functions must be achievable using only knowledge local
   to the Agent.  Rather than directly controlling an Agent, a Manager
   configures an engine of the Agent to take its own action under the
   appropriate conditions in accordance with the Agent's notion of local
   state and time.

   Such an engine may be used for simple automation of predefined tasks
   or to support semi-autonomous behavior in determining when to run
   tasks and how to configure or parameterize tasks when they are run.
   Wholly autonomous operations MAY be supported where required.
   Generally, autonomous operations should provide the following

   o  Distributed Operation - The concept of pre-configuration allows
      the Agent to operate without regular contact with Managers in the
      system.  The initial configuration (and periodic update) of the
      system remains difficult in a challenged network, but an initial
      synchronization on stimuli and responses drastically reduces needs
      for centralized operations.

   o  Deterministic Behavior - Such behavior is necessary in critical
      operational systems where the actions of a platform must be well
      understood even in the absence of an operator in the loop.
      Depending on the types of stimuli and responses, these systems may
      be considered simple automation or semi-autonomous behavior, both
      of which imply the ability of a frequently-out-of-contact Manager
      to better predict the state of an Agent than if controls were to
      be run by an independent, fully autonomous system.

   o  Engine-Based Behavior - Several operational systems are unable to
      deploy "mobile code" based solutions due to network bandwidth,
      memory or processor loading, or security concerns.  Engine-based
      approaches are preferred as they can be flexible without incurring
      a set of problematic requirements or concerns.

6.  Roles and Responsibilities

   By definition, Agents reside on managed devices and Managers reside
   on managing devices.  This section describes how these roles
   participate in the network management functions outlined in the prior

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

6.1.  Agent Responsibilities

   Application Support
           Agents MUST collect all data, execute all procedures,
           populate all reports and run operations required by each
           application which the Agent claims to manage.  Agents MUST
           report supported applications so that Managers in a network
           understands what information is understood by what Agent.

   Local Data Collection
           Agents MUST collect from local firmware (or other on-board
           mechanisms) and report all data defined for the management of
           applications for which they have been configured.

   Autonomous Control
           Agents MUST determine, without Manager intervention, whether
           a procedure should be invoked.  Agents MAY also invoke
           procedures on other devices for which they act as proxy.

   User Data Definition
           Agents MUST provide mechanisms for operators in the network
           to use configuration services to create customized data
           definitions in the context of a specific network or network
           use-case.  Agents MUST allow for the creation, listing, and
           removal of such definitions in accordance with whatever
           security models are deployed within the particular network.

           Where applicable, Agents MUST verify the validity of these
           definitions when they are configured and respond in a way
           consistent with the logging/error-handling policies of the
           Agent and the network.

   Autonomous Reporting
           Agents MUST determine, without real-time Manager
           intervention, whether and when to populate and transmit a
           given report targeted to one or more Managers in the network.

   Consolidate Messages
           Agents SHOULD produce as few messages as possible when
           sending information.  For example, rather than sending
           multiple messages, each with one report to a Manager, an
           Agent SHOULD prefer to send a single message containing
           multiple reports.

   Regional Proxy
           Agents MAY perform any of their responsibilities on behalf of
           other network nodes that, themselves, do not have an Agent.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

           In such a configuration, the Agent acts as a proxy for these
           other network nodes.

6.2.  Manager Responsibilities

   Agent Capabilities Mapping
           Managers MUST understand what applications are managed by the
           various Agents with which they communicate.  Managers should
           not attempt to request, invoke, or refer to application
           information for applications not managed by an Agent.

   Data Collection
           Managers MUST receive information from Agents by
           asynchronously configuring the production of reports and then
           waiting for, and collecting, responses from Agents over time.
           Managers MAY try to detect conditions where Agent information
           has not been received within operationally relevant time
           spans and react in accordance with network policy.

   Custom Definitions
           Managers should provide the ability to define custom data
           definitions.  Any custom definitions MUST be transmitted to
           appropriate Agents and these definitions MUST be remembered
           to interpret the reporting of these custom values from Agents
           in the future.

   Data Translation
           Managers should provide some interface to other network
           management protocols.  Managers MAY accomplish this by
           accumulating a repository of push-data from high-latency
           parts of the network from which data may be pulled by low-
           latency parts of the network.

   Data Fusion
           Managers MAY support the fusion of data from multiple Agents
           with the purpose of transmitting fused data results to other
           Managers within the network.  Managers MAY receive fused
           reports from other Managers pursuant to appropriate security
           and administrative configurations.

7.  Logical Data Model

   The AMA logical data model captures the types of information that
   should be collected and exchanged to implement necessary roles and
   responsibilities.  The data model presented in this section does not
   presuppose a specific mapping to a physical data model or encoding
   technique; it is included to provide a way to logically reason about

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   the types of data that should be exchanged in an asynchronously
   managed network.

   The elements of the AMA logical data model are described as follows.

7.1.  EDDs, VARs, and Reporting

   There are three fundamental representations of data in the AMA: (1)
   data which are sampled/calculated external to the network management
   system, (2) data which are calculated internal to the network
   management system, and (3) ordered collections of data items used for

   Data that is sampled/calculated external to the network management
   system is defined as "externally defined data" (EDD).  EDD values
   represent the most useful information in the management system as
   they are provided by the applications or protocol being managed on
   the Agent.  It is RECOMMENDED that EDD values be strongly typed to
   avoid issues with interpreting the data value.  It is also
   RECOMMENDED that the timeliness/staleness of the data value be
   considered when using the data in the context of autonomous action on
   the Agent.

   Data that is calculated internal to the network management system is
   defined as a "variable" (VAR).  VARs allow the creation of new data
   values for use in the network management system.  New value
   definitions are useful for storing user-defined information, storing
   the results of complex calculations for easier re-use, and providing
   a mechanism for combining information from multiple external sources.
   It is RECOMMENDED that VARs be strongly typed to avoid issues with
   interpreting the data value.  In cases where a VAR definition relies
   on other VAR definitions, mechanisms to prevent circular references
   MUST be included in any actual data model or implementation.

   Ordered collections of EDD values and VARs should be produced by
   Agents and sent to Managers as a way of communicating Agent state.
   Such an ordered collection is called a "report" (RPT).  It is
   RECOMMENDED that the structure of a RPT be given in a template that
   can be synchronized between an Agent and a Manager so that RPTs
   themselves do not need to be self-describing.  A RPT may include EDD
   values, VARs, and also other RPTs.  In cases where a RPT includes
   another RPT, mechanisms to prevent circular references MUST be
   included in any actual data model or implementation.

   In cases where sets of data can comply to a tabular format, a
   Table structure should be used instead of a report structure.  In
   these cases, table columns provide name and type information that
   does not need to be repeated in every data value.  However, unlike

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   reports, the regularity of the table structure allows for the
   addition of rows without altering the format of the table structure.
   Attempting to add a new data set at the end of a report would require
   alterations to the report template.  Additionally, the prescriptive
   nature of the Table structure allows for the possibility of advanced
   filtering which may reduce traffic between Agents and Managers.

7.2.  Controls and Macros

   Low-latency, high-availability approaches to network management use
   mechanisms such as (or similar to) remote procedure calls (RPCs) to
   cause some action to be performed on an Agent.  The AMA requires
   similar capabilities, though without requiring that the Manager be in
   the processing loop of the Agent.

   A "control" (CTRL) represents a parameterized, predefined procedure
   that can be run on an Agent.  CTRLs do not have a return code as
   there is not the same concept of sequential execution in an
   asynchronous model.  Parameters can be provided when running a
   command from a Manager, pre-configured as part of an autonomy
   response on the Agent, or auto-generated as needed on the Agent.  The
   success or failure of a control MAY be inferred by reports generated
   for that purpose.

   Often, a series of controls must be executed in concert to achieve a
   particular outcome.  A "macro" (MACRO) represents an ordered
   collection of controls (or other macros).  In cases where a MACRO
   includes another MACRO, mechanisms to prevent circular references and
   maximum nesting levels MUST be included in any actual data model or

7.3.  Rules

   The AMA data model contains EDD values and VARs that capture the
   state of applications on an Agent.  The model also contains controls
   and macros to perform actions on an Agent.  A mechanism is needed to
   relate these two capabilities; to perform an action on the Agent in
   response to the state of the Agent.

   One way of mapping Agent state to Agent actions is via a stimulus-
   response system.  A "rule" represents a stimulus-response pairing in
   the following form.
   IF predicate THEN response
   The predicate is a logical expression that evaluates to true if the
   rule stimulus is present and evaluates to false otherwise.  The
   response may be any control or macro known to the Agent.  An example
   of a time-based predicate is to perform some activity every 24 hours
   (e.g., (((CUR_TIME - START_TIME) % 24Hrs) == 0)).  An example of a

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   state-based predicate is to perform some activity if a given EDD
   value exceeds a predefined threshold such as a measured temperature
   exceeds 80 degrees centigrade (e.g., (TEMP > 80.0))

   Rules should be allowed to construct their stimuli from the full set
   of EDD values and VARs available to the network management system.
   Similarly, macro responses should be allowed to include controls from
   all applications known by the Agent.  This enables an expressive
   capability to have multiple applications monitored and managed by the

7.4.  Operators and Literals

   Actions such as computing a VAR value or describing a rule predicate
   require calculating mathematical expressions.  An element of an
   expression will be one of four types of data: an EDD value, a VAR
   value, a mathematical operations, and literal values.

   An "operator" (OP) represents a mathematical operation in an
   expression.  OPs should support multiple operands based on the
   operation supported.  A common set of OPs SHOULD be defined for any
   Agent and systems MAY choose to allow individual applications to
   define new OPs to assist in the generation of new VAR values and
   predicates for managing that application.  OPs may be simple binary
   operations such as "A + B" or more complex functions such as sin(A)
   or avg(A,B,C,D).

   A "literal" (LIT) represents a constant value, such as simple numbers
   (e.g., 4), well-known mathematical numbers (e.g., PI, E), or other
   useful data such as Epoch times.  LITs should be strongly typed to
   avoid any misinterpretation of their data value.

8.  System Model

   This section describes the notional data flows and control flows that
   illustrate how Managers and Agents within an AMA cooperate to perform
   network management services.

8.1.  Control and Data Flows

   The AMA identifies three significant data flows: control flows from
   Managers to Agents, reports flows from Agents to Managers, and fusion
   reports from Managers to other Managers.  These data flows are
   illustrated in Figure 1.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

                        AMA Control and Data Flows

       +---------+       +------------------------+      +---------+
       | Node A  |       |         Node B         |      |  Node C |
       |         |       |                        |      |         |
       |+-------+|       |+-------+      +-------+|      |+-------+|
       ||       ||=====>>||Manager|====>>|       ||====>>||       ||
       ||       ||<<=====||   B   |<<====|Agent B||<<====||       ||
       ||       ||       |+--++---+      +-------+|      ||Manager||
       || Agent ||       +---||-------------------+      ||   C   ||
       ||   A   ||           ||                          ||       ||
       ||       ||<<=========||==========================||       ||
       ||       ||===========++========================>>||       ||
       |+-------+|                                       |+-------+|
       +---------+                                       +---------+

                                 Figure 1

   In this data flow, the Agent on node A receives Controls from
   Managers on nodes B and C, and replies with Report Entries back to
   these Managers.  Similarly, the Agent on node B interacts with the
   local Manager on node B and the remote Manager on node C.  Finally,
   the Manager on node B may fuse Report Entries received from Agents at
   nodes A and B and send these fused Report Entries back to the Manager
   on node C.
   From this figure it is clear that there exist many-to-many
   relationships amongst Managers, amongst Agents, and between Agents
   and Managers.  Note that Agents and Managers are roles, not
   necessarily differing software applications.  Node A may represent a
   single software application fulfilling only the Agent role, whereas
   node B may have a single software application fulfilling both the
   Agent and Manager roles.  The specifics of how these roles are
   realized is an implementation matter.

8.2.  Control Flow by Role

   This section describes three common configurations of Agents and
   Managers and the flow of messages between them.  These configurations
   involve local and remote management and data fusion.

8.2.1.  Notation

   The notation outlined in Table 1 describes the types of control
   messages exchanged between Agents and Managers.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   |     Term    |              Definition              |   Example    |
   |     EDD#    |           EDD definition.            |     EDD1     |
   |             |                                      |              |
   |      V#     |       Custom data definition.        | V1 = EDD1 +  |
   |             |                                      |     V0.      |
   |             |                                      |              |
   |  DEF([ACL], |   Define id from expression. Allow   | DEF([*], V1, |
   |   ID,EXPR)  |   managers in access control list    | EDD1 + EDD2) |
   |             |      (ACL) to request this id.       |              |
   |             |                                      |              |
   |  PROD(P,ID) | Produce ID according to predicate P. |   PROD(1s,   |
   |             |  P may be a time period (1s) or an   |    EDD1)     |
   |             |       expression (EDD1 > 10).        |              |
   |             |                                      |              |
   |   RPT(ID)   |      A report identified by ID.      |  RPT(EDD1)   |

                           Table 1: Terminology

8.2.2.  Serialized Management

   This is a nominal configuration of network management where a Manager
   interacts with a set of Agents.  The control flows for this are
   outlined in Figure 2.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

                    Serialized Management Control Flow

         +----------+            +---------+           +---------+
         |  Manager |            | Agent A |           | Agent B |
         +----+-----+            +----+----+           +----+----+
              |                       |                     |
              |-----PROD(1s, EDD1)--->|                     | (1)
              |----------------------------PROD(1s, EDD1)-->|
              |                       |                     |
              |                       |                     |
              |<-------RPT(EDD1)------|                     | (2)
              |                       |                     |
              |                       |                     |
              |<-------RPT(EDD1)------|                     |
              |                       |                     |
              |                       |                     |
              |<-------RPT(EDD1)------|                     |
              |                       |                     |

      In a simple network, a Manager interacts with multiple Agents.

                                 Figure 2

   In this figure, the Manager configures Agents A and B to produce EDD1
   every second in (1).  At some point in the future, upon receiving and
   configuring this message, Agents A and B then build a Report Entry
   containing EDD1 and send those reports back to the Manager in (2).

8.2.3.  Multiplexed Management

   Networks spanning multiple administrative domains may require
   multiple Managers (for example, one per domain).  When a Manager
   defines custom Reports/Variables to an Agent, that definition may be
   tagged with an access control list (ACL) to limit what other Managers
   will be privy to this information.  Managers in such networks should
   synchronize with those other Managers granted access to their custom
   data definitions.  When Agents generate messages, they MUST only send
   messages to Managers according to these ACLs, if present.  The
   control flows in this scenario are outlined in Figure 3.

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

                    Multiplexed Management Control Flow

        +-----------+            +-------+            +-----------+
        | Manager A |            | Agent |            | Manager B |
        +-----+-----+            +---+---+            +-----+-----+
              |                      |                      |
              |---DEF(A,V1,EDD1*2)-->|<-DEF(B, V2, EDD2*2)--| (1)
              |                      |                      |
              |---PROD(1s, V1)------>|<---PROD(1s, V2)------| (2)
              |                      |                      |
              |<--------RPT(V1)------|                      | (3)
              |                      |--------RPT(V2)------>|
              |<--------RPT(V1)------|                      |
              |                      |--------RPT(V2)------>|
              |                      |                      |
              |                      |<---PROD(1s, V1)------| (4)
              |                      |                      |
              |                      |---ERR(V1 no perm.)-->|
              |                      |                      |
              |--DEF(*,V3,EDD3*3)--->|                      | (5)
              |                      |                      |
              |---PROD(1s, V3)------>|                      | (6)
              |                      |                      |
              |                      |<----PROD(1s, V3)-----|
              |                      |                      |
              |<--------RPT(V3)------|--------RPT(V3)------>| (7)
              |<--------RPT(V1)------|                      |
              |                      |--------RPT(V2)------>|
              |<-------RPT(V1)-------|                      |
              |                      |--------RPT(V2)------>|

    Complex networks require multiple Managers interfacing with Agents.

                                 Figure 3

   In more complex networks, any Manager may choose to define custom
   Reports and Variables, and Agents may need to accept such definitions
   from multiple Managers.  Variable definitions may include an ACL that
   describes who may query and otherwise understand these definitions.
   In (1), Manager A defines V1 only for A while Manager B defines V2
   only for B.  Managers may, then, request the production of Report
   Entries containing these definitions, as shown in (2).  Agents
   produce different data for different Managers in accordance with
   configured production rules, as shown in (3).  If a Manager requests
   the production of a custom definition for which the Manager has no
   permissions, a response consistent with the configured logging policy
   on the Agent should be implemented, as shown in (4).  Alternatively,

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   as shown in (5), a Manager may define custom data with no
   restrictions allowing all other Managers to request and use this
   definition.  This allows all Managers to request the production of
   Report Entries containing this definition, shown in (6) and have all
   Managers receive this and other data going forward, as shown in (7).

8.2.4.  Data Fusion

   In some networks, Agents do not individually transmit their data to a
   Manager, preferring instead to fuse reporting data with local nodes
   prior to transmission.  This approach reduces the number and size of
   messages in the network and reduces overall transmission energy
   expenditure.  The AMA supports fusion of NM reports by co-locating
   Agents and Managers on nodes and offloading fusion activities to the
   Manager.  This process is illustrated in Figure 4.

                         Data Fusion Control Flow

   +-----------+        +-----------+      +---------+      +---------+
   | Manager A |        | Manager B |      | Agent B |      | Agent C |
   +---+-------+        +-----+-----+      +----+----+      +----+----+
       |                      |                 |                |
       |--DEF(A,V0,EDD1+AD2)->|                 |                | (1)
       |--PROD(EDD1&AD2,V0)-->|                 |                |
       |                      |                 |                |
       |                      |--PROD(1s,EDD1)->|                | (2)
       |                      |------------------PROD(1s, EDD2)->|
       |                      |                 |                |
       |                      |<---RPT(EDD1)----|                | (3)
       |                      |<------------------RPT(EDD2)------|
       |                      |                 |                |
       |<-----RPT(A,V0)-------|                 |                | (4)
       |                      |                 |                |

            Data fusion occurs amongst Managers in the network.

                                 Figure 4

   In this example, Manager A requires the production of a Variable V0,
   from node B, as shown in (1).  The Manager role understands what data
   is available from what agents in the subnetwork local to B,
   understanding that EDD1 is available locally and EDD2 is available
   remotely.  Production messages are produced in (2) and data collected
   in (3).  This allows the Manager at node B to fuse the collected
   Report Entries into V0 and return it in (4).  While a trivial
   example, the mechanism of associating fusion with the Manager
   function rather than the Agent function scales with fusion
   complexity, though it is important to reiterate that Agent and

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   Manager designations are roles, not individual software components.
   There may be a single software application running on node B
   implementing both Manager B and Agent B roles.

9.  IANA Considerations

   At this time, this protocol has no fields registered by IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   Security within an AMA MUST exist in two layers: transport layer
   security and access control.

   Transport-layer security addresses the questions of authentication,
   integrity, and confidentiality associated with the transport of
   messages between and amongst Managers and Agents in the AMA.  This
   security is applied before any particular Actor in the system
   receives data and, therefore, is outside of the scope of this

   Finer grain application security is done via ACLs which are defined
   via configuration messages and implementation specific.

11.  Informative References

              Birrane, E. and R. Cole, "Management of Disruption-
              Tolerant Networks: A Systems Engineering Approach", 2010.

              Birrane, E., Burleigh, S., and V. Cerf, "Defining
              Tolerance: Impacts of Delay and Disruption when Managing
              Challenged Networks", 2011.

              Birrane, E. and H. Kruse, "Delay-Tolerant Network
              Management: The Definition and Exchange of Infrastructure
              Information in High Delay Environments", 2011.

              Birrane, E. and V. Ramachandran, "Delay Tolerant Network
              Management Protocol", draft-irtf-dtnrg-dtnmp-01 (work in
              progress), December 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                     AMA                      October 2017

   [RFC3416]  Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
              for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
              STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,

   [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
              R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
              Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,

Author's Address

   Edward J. Birrane
   Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory


Birrane                    Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 25]