COINRG L. M. Contreras
Internet-Draft Telefonica
Intended status: Informational M. Boucadair
Expires: 6 January 2025 Orange
D. Lopez
Telefonica
C. J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
5 July 2024
An Evolution of Cooperating Layered Architecture for SDN (CLAS) for
Compute and Data Awareness
draft-contreras-coinrg-clas-evolution-03
Abstract
This document proposes an extension to the Cooperating Layered
Architecture for Software-Defined Networking (SDN) by including
compute resources and data analysis processing capabilities.
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 6 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (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
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Cooperating Layered Architecture for Software-Defined
Networking (CLAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Augmentation of CLAS with Compute and Data Analysis
Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Compute Stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Knowledge Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Extended CLAS Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Discussion on Research Aspects of the Proposed
Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Discussion Related to the Compute Stratum . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Discussion Related to the Knowledge plane . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Discussion Related to the Connectivity Stratum . . . . . 10
5.4. Discussion Related to the Service Stratum . . . . . . . . 11
6. Applicability scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Cloud-edge Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Network-application Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Communication between strata (and planes) . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Communication between Applications and Service Stratum . 13
7.2. Communication between Service Stratum and Connectivity
Stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Communication between Service stratum and Compute
Stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Communication between Connectivity stratum and Compute
stratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. TODO for next versions of this document . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Telecommunication networks are evolving towards a tight integration
of interconnected compute environments, offering specifically
capabilities for the instantiation of virtualized network functions
interworking with physical variants of other network functions,
altogether used to build and deliver services.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
Moreover, network operations are endorsing automation (e.g.,
[RFC8969]) and programmability (e.g., [RFC7149][RFC7426]) with the
introduction of closed-loop mechanisms, intent declarations,
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques to
facilitate informed (proactive) decisions as well as predictive
behaviors enabling consistent automation.
It is then necessary to provide a network management framework that
could incorporate these technical components, structuring the
different concerns (i.e., connectivity, processing and telemetry data
generation and analysis) and the interaction among components
operating the network. Existing approaches (e.g. [RFC8969]) only
focus on the networking aspects (i.e., connectivity) without
sufficient consideration of both compute domain and data analysis.
In fact, those current approaches exhibit some limitations whcih
could require evolutionary paths for future network management
[I-D.boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later].
This document describes an evolution of the Cooperating Layered
Architecture for Software-Defined Networking (CLAS) [RFC8597] to
include the aforementioned aspects into the architecture.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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. Cooperating Layered Architecture for Software-Defined Networking
(CLAS)
[RFC8597] describes an SDN architecture structured in two different
strata, namely Service Stratum and Transport Stratum. On one hand,
the Service Stratum contains the functions related to the provision
of services and the capabilities offered to external applications.
On the other hand, the Transport Stratum comprises the functions
focused on the transfer of data between the communication endpoints
(e.g., between end-user devices, between two service gateways, etc.).
Each of the strata is structured in different planes, as follows:
* The Control plane, which centralizes the control functions of each
stratum and directly controls the corresponding resources.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
* The Management plane, logically centralizing the management
functions for each stratum, including the management of the
control and resource planes.
* The Resource plane, that comprises the resources for either the
transport or the service functions.
Figure 1 illustrates the original CLAS architecture.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
Applications
/\
||
||
+-------------------------------------||-------------+
| Service Stratum || |
| \/ |
| ........................... |
| . SDN Intelligence . |
| . . |
| +--------------+ . +--------------+ . |
| | Resource Pl. | . | Mgmt. Pl. | . |
| | |<===>. +--------------+ | . |
| | | . | Control Pl. | | . |
| +--------------+ . | |-----+ . |
| . | | . |
| . +--------------+ . |
| ........................... |
| /\ |
| || |
+-------------------------------------||-------------+
|| Standard
-- || -- API
||
+-------------------------------------||-------------+
| Transport Stratum || |
| \/ |
| ........................... |
| . SDN Intelligence . |
| . . |
| +--------------+ . +--------------+ . |
| | Resource Pl. | . | Mgmt. Pl. | . |
| | |<===>. +--------------+ | . |
| | | . | Control Pl. | | . |
| +--------------+ . | |-----+ . |
| . | | . |
| . +--------------+ . |
| ........................... |
| |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Cooperating Layered Architecture for SDN {{RFC8597}}
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
4. Augmentation of CLAS with Compute and Data Analysis Awareness
The CLAS architecture was initially conceived from the perspective of
exploiting the advantages of network programmability in operational
networks.
The evolution of current networks and the services they support are,
however, introducing new aspects:
* Considerations of distributed computing capabilities attached to
different points in the network, intended for hosting a variety of
services and applications usually in a virtualized manner (e.g.,
[I-D.contreras-alto-service-edge]).
* Introduction of evidence-driven techniques, such as Analytics,
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques
in order to improve operations by means of closed loop automation
(e.g., [I-D.irtf-nmrg-ai-challenges]).
With that in mind, this memo proposes augmentations to the original
CLAS architecture by adding the aforementioned aspects.
4.1. Compute Stratum
The CLAS architecture is extended by adding a new stratum, named
Compute Stratum. This stratum contains the control, management, and
resource planes related to the computing aspects. This additional
stratum cooperates with the other two in order to facilitate the
overall service provision in the network.
With this addition, and in order to be more explicit in the strata
scope, the previously named Transport Stratum is renamed as
Connectivity Stratum, representing the fact that this stratum
responsibility is focused on the overall connectivity supporting the
other two strata in the architecture.
4.2. Knowledge Plane
Data Analysis is usually part of the management plane. In order to
insist on the data analytics matters, this document defines Knowledge
as a dedicated plane as it streams sensitive data that is
instrumental for the CLAS strata.
A further extension to the original CLAS architecture is related to
the need of collecting, processing and sharing relevant data and
information from each of the considered strata. With that purpose a
Knowledge plane is proposed to complement the already existing planes
per stratum.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
The Knowledge plane is in charge of handling the data analytics
specificities of each stratum. Thus, the Knowledge plane in the
Service Stratum is focused on data relevant to the service as defined
by the application or service owner, usually in terms of service key
performance indicators (KPI), as for instance in [TMV]. Then, the
Knowledge plane in the compute stratum concentrates on data related
to the computing capabilities in use (e.g., CPU load, RAM usage,
storage utilization, etc)
[I-D.rcr-opsawg-operational-compute-metrics]. Finally, the Knowledge
plane in the network stratum is in charge of handling the monitoring
and telemetry information obtained from the network (e.g.,
[RFC9418]).
4.3. Extended CLAS Architecture
Figure 2 presents the augmentation proposed showing the relationship
among strata.
Applications
/\
||
+-------------------------------------||-------------+
| Service Stratum || |
| \/ |
| +--------------+ ........................... |
| | Knowledge | . SDN Intelligence . |
| | Pl. |<===>. . |
| +-----/\-------+ . +--------------+ . |
| || . | Mgmt. Pl. | . |
| || . +--------------+ | . |
| +-----\/-------+ . | Control Pl. |-----+ . |
| | Resource Pl. | . | | . |
| | |<===>. +--------------+ . |
| +--------------+ ........................... |
| /\ /\ |
| || || |
+--------------------------------||-------------||---+
Standard API -- || -- ||
+--------------------------------||-----+ ||
| Compute Stratum || | ||
| \/ | ||
| +----------+ ................... | ||
| | Knowledge| . SDN . | Std. ||
| | Plane |<==>. Intelligence . | API ||
| +-----/\---+ . +----------+ . | -- || --
| || . | Mgmt. Pl.| . | ||
| || . +----------+ | . | ||
| +-----\/---+ . | Control |-+ . | ||
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
| | Resource | . | Plane | . | ||
| | Plane |<==>. +----------+ . | ||
| +----------+ ................... | ||
+----------------------------------/\---+ ||
Standard API -- || -- ||
+-------------------||-----------||-----+
| Connectivity || || |
| Stratum || || |
| \/ \/ |
| +----------+ ................... |
| | Knowledge| . SDN . |
| | Plane |<==>. Intelligence . |
| +-----/\---+ . +----------+ . |
| || . | Mgmt. Pl.| . |
| || . +----------+ | . |
| +-----\/---+ . | Control |-+ . |
| | Resource | . | Plane | . |
| | Plane |<==>. +----------+ . |
| +----------+ ................... |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Extended CLAS architecture
The relationship among the Connectivity and Compute strata is not
hierarchical in any sense. Both are at the same level and there is
no dependecy of one of them over the other. A more simplistic
representation of the different starta is presented in Figure 3 with
less details regarding the planes for the sake of clarity.
Service Stratum
A A
| |
--------|-----------|-------
| |
V V
Connectivity <---> Compute
Stratum Stratum
Figure 3: Simple representation of the extended CLAS architecture
5. Discussion on Research Aspects of the Proposed Architecture
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
5.1. Discussion Related to the Compute Stratum
The inclusion of the Compute Stratum extends the resource layer/plane
in a manner that the network (i.e., including processing capabilities
and the associated connectivity) can be programmed consistently and
in an integrated way. This is very relevant when evolving to network
architectures pursuing the could-edge continuum, even considering the
extension to the very extreme edge.
Important to note, the aforementioned cloud-edge continuum could be
potentially constituted by resources from multiple administrative
domains. Enabling the management of multiple heterogeneous domains
in a so-called "frictionless" manner is the necessary to be explored.
It is also relevant the fact that different cloud management systems
can be simultaneously in place, for instance OpenStack and
Kubernetes. This adds extra complexity to the integration with the
other two strata, which should deal in principle with different APIs
and interfaces for interworking.
One key point related to the cross-strata interplay refers to the
scheduling of workloads in the cloud-edge continuum. The decision
about where to instantiate the different functions or applications
(for instance, following the micro-service approach in cloud-native
applications) can be benefited from the information of both
connectivity and compute domains in order to take optimal decisions
from the service perspective.
Finally, even for a single cloud management system, the compute
stratum can be formed by multiple domains. This could be teh case of
multi-cluster systems in Kubernetes.
5.2. Discussion Related to the Knowledge plane
One of the aspects to investigate is the application of evidence-
driven, “smart” management (most notably, based on AI) to network
management and control. These considerations are taken place as well
in other fora [ITU]. There are multiple issues to consider:
* Telemetry data generation and context information.
* The lifecycle of data flows in the closed loop, in both
directions,from network to management and vice versa.
* The flows controlling the behavior (policies/intents), as defined
by network admins, and potentially users, towards the management
elements.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
* Feedback (i.e., predictions, suggested actions, etc) patterns from
management elements to network administrators, and users.
* Metadata models to represent sources and consumers of data at the
Knowledge plane, supporting the dynamic attachment of new sources
and consumers, including data composition elements.
* Flow patterns and models facilitating the cooperation among
distinct Knowledge planes, implying knowledge sharing among
different segments, and data and knowledge aggregation at
different strata of control.
* Security and privacy issues regarding the usage of data flows,
considering their provenance and potential attestation methods.
A potential way to follow is the definition of a common, model-based,
approach, also defining a recursive structure that could become a
generalization of the CLAS model.
Other relevant aspect particular to the knowledge plane is the
interplay of the decisions that could be take across the distinct
strata. Such decisions could collide, so arbitration mechanisms
could be required for consensus among the knowledge planes in each
strata.
5.3. Discussion Related to the Connectivity Stratum
The consideration of multi-domain scenarios has different
implications in both connectivity and compute strata. Thus, a muti-
domain (i.e., multi-cluster) scenario in the compute strata could
imply the intercation with just one single domain at connectivity
stratum level. In contrast, multi-domain scenarios at the
connectivity stratum will usually imply multi-domain situation at the
compute stratum as well.
Another aspect to solve is the dichotomy between overlay and underlay
connectivity typically present in cloud-based services. Cloud
management systems provide mechanisms for the communications between
the distinct instances, being such connectivity commonly solved by
means of overlay connectivity or, at least, without any specific
traffic engineering in place, precisely due to the lack of
coordination between the clous and network management systems. Thus,
a more integrated functioning of compute and connectivity strata
could help to sophisticate the communication capabilities of cloud-
based services.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
5.4. Discussion Related to the Service Stratum
As mentioned before, service instantiation can be highly benefited
from the availability of metrics and date fo both compute and
connectivity strata. However, in order to build a consistent view of
both, it is necessary to guarantee on one hand that the time
reference of such information is consistent in both strata, and on
the othe rhand, that the age of information is sufficiently good for
the decision to be taken (i.e., to avoid considering past, not valid
information). thus, mechanisms for efficiently populating and
processing such information should be in place.
It should be also noted that current transition to cloud-based
services makes the compute stratum the natural entry point for
service instantiation. Thus, the typical interface (or API) for
service deployment will be determined by the one available in the
cloud management system, in contrast with the interface (or API)
supported by the connectivity stratum. This could be the case of the
Custom Resources for Kubernetes in the cloud stratum, versus the YANG
models for network services in the connectivity stratum. Proper
translation and adaptation mechanisms can be required to ensure full
end-to-end service provision (especially to solve the overlay -
underlay dichotomy mentioned before).
Also of relevance is the accounting of resources allocated to the
service in both connectivity and compute strata. Resources in each
strata are of different nature and consistent accounting should be
defined.
Finally, when dealing with contextual information and/or metadata, it
is also possible to distinguish metadata for the service from
metadata that could be used/required for the supportive compute and
connectivity infrasrtructure. Both levels of metadata should be
consistent to avoid misfunctioning that could impact the service.
6. Applicability scenarios
This section describes deployment scenarios suitable for the CLAS
architecture evolution.
6.1. Cloud-edge Continuum
More and more, computing facilities are being deployed by network
service providers to satisfy a number of use cases requiring of
distributed compute processing capabilities (e.g., for micro-service
instantiation), some of them as edge nodes because of the need of
proximity. Use cases in [I-D.irtf-coinrg-use-cases] exemplify those
needs.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
Such distributed computing facilities form what is known as cloud-
edge continuum. Those distributed facilities need to be
interconnected for accomplishing end-to-end services, based in the
interaction of multiple applications of service functions placed in
different compute nodes for performance or resource efficiency
reasons.
Current ways of deploying services follow the cloud-native approach
of instantiating a set of micro-services that can be located at
different compute nodes. Typical cloud management systems such as
Kubernetes take care of the allocation of cloud-edge resources across
distinct nodes or clusters. For the networking part, it is necessary
to interact with network controllers capable of providing the
necessary connectivity with certain guarantees.
The extended CLAS architecture represents a framework where the
cloud-native resources can be handled in combination with the
connectivity part, assuring the service not only at the provisioning
phase but during the complete service lifecycle, and supporting them
across different domains.
Features that can expected to be satisfied in this type of scenarios
are:
* Overall resource optimization of system resources at different
levels (i.e., compute, network, etc). This can imply a process of
learning and inferring status based on historical resource usage
data.
* Assurance of Service Level Objectives (SLOs) by acting on either
the compute or the connectivity parts. This can motivate the need
of compute workloads migration along the service lifetime between
compute nodes, requiring to adapt the connectivity to the new
placement.
* Secure transfer of data across the cloud-edge continuum, with the
necessary isolation of services among users, and the required
Confidentiality and integrity properties, which can imply the
application of isolation capabilities trustworthiness verification
in both compute and connectivity strata.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
6.2. Network-application Integration
Nowadays applications take service decisions mostly decoupled from
network status and conditions. Similarly, the network is not aware
of applications needs, so that is not possible in certain cases to
satisfy application needs. Thus, emerges the need of further
collaboration or integration between applications and the network.
[RFC9419] discusses principles for designing mechanisms allowing
application - network collaboration.
Such collaboration can proactively or reactively trigger actions in
the network at run time. Features that can expected to be satisfied
in this type of scenarios are:
* Monitoring information that could be relevant for either the
application or the network. The monitoring information will be a
composition of information from both compute and connectivity
strata.
* Exposure of capabilities from the network, including (and even
combining) both the compute and connectivity strata.
* Usage of metadata for either the connectivity or the processing of
the information at service level
7. Communication between strata (and planes)
The communication between strata (and the planes within) is
represented in Figure 2 by means of generic standard APIs. An
initial or preliminary analysis of possible means of communicationg
strata is provided here.
This is not an exhaustive exercise but an effort to concretize
examples of communication mechanisms. Further versions of the
document will refine this initial exercise.
7.1. Communication between Applications and Service Stratum
The following mechanisms can be identified as communication means
between Applications and Service Stratum.
* Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP) [RFC8921]
* Interconnection Intents
[I-D.contreras-nmrg-interconnection-intents]
* Slice intent [I-D.contreras-nmrg-transport-slice-intent]
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
* Selection of proper edge for service placement
[I-D.contreras-alto-service-edge]
* Composition of service function chains
[I-D.lcsr-alto-service-functions]
7.2. Communication between Service Stratum and Connectivity Stratum
Similarly, the following are potential mechanisms for communication
between Service Stratum and Connectivity Stratum
* Framework for Automating Service and Network Management [RFC8969],
as well as the models referenced there
* IETF Network Slice Service model
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
* Service function aware TE topology model
[I-D.ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model]
7.3. Communication between Service stratum and Compute Stratum
Between both Service and Compute Stratum the follwoing mechanisms
could be used.
* Data Center aware TE topology model
[I-D.llc-teas-dc-aware-topo-model]
* Cloud-based solutions (e.g., Kubernetes)
7.4. Communication between Connectivity stratum and Compute stratum
Finally, the direct communication between COnnectivity and Compute
strata can be realized by mechanisms as follows:
* Traffic steering with service function awareness
[I-D.ietf-cats-framework]
8. TODO for next versions of this document
This version is a work-in-progress. Next versions of the document
will address some further aspects such as:
* Deployment scenarios (including legacy ones).
* Potential use cases (specially in alignment with on-going
activities in COINRG / NMRG).
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
9. Security Considerations
Same security considerations as reflected in [RFC8597] with regards
to the strata architecture apply also here.
Apart from that, the introduction of the Knowledge plane on the data
management imposes additional security concerns, as those identified
in [I-D.irtf-nmrg-ai-challenges].
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
11. References
11.1. 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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later]
Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M., de Dios, O. G., Graf, T.,
and R. Rahman, "RFC 3535, 20 Years Later: An Update of
Operators Requirements on Network Management Protocols and
Modelling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-03, 18 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boucadair-
nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-03>.
[I-D.contreras-alto-service-edge]
Contreras, L. M., Randriamasy, S., Ros-Giralt, J., Perez,
D. A. L., and C. E. Rothenberg, "Use of ALTO for
Determining Service Edge", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-contreras-alto-service-edge-10, 13 October
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
contreras-alto-service-edge-10>.
[I-D.contreras-nmrg-interconnection-intents]
Contreras, L. M. and P. Lucente, "Interconnection
Intents", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
contreras-nmrg-interconnection-intents-04, 4 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
nmrg-interconnection-intents-04>.
[I-D.contreras-nmrg-transport-slice-intent]
Contreras, L. M., Demestichas, P., and J. Tantsura, "IETF
Network Slice Intent", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-contreras-nmrg-transport-slice-intent-06, 24 October
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
contreras-nmrg-transport-slice-intent-06>.
[I-D.ietf-cats-framework]
Li, C., Du, Z., Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M., and J.
Drake, "A Framework for Computing-Aware Traffic Steering
(CATS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
cats-framework-02, 30 April 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cats-
framework-02>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
Wu, B., Dhody, D., Rokui, R., Saad, T., and J. Mullooly,
"A YANG Data Model for the RFC 9543 Network Slice
Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-13, 9 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-13>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model]
Bryskin, I., Liu, X., Lee, Y., Guichard, J., Contreras, L.
M., Ceccarelli, D., Tantsura, J., and D. Shytyi, "SF Aware
TE Topology YANG Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-13, 4 July 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-
aware-topo-model-13>.
[I-D.irtf-coinrg-use-cases]
Kunze, I., Wehrle, K., Trossen, D., Montpetit, M., de Foy,
X., Griffin, D., and M. Rio, "Use Cases for In-Network
Computing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
coinrg-use-cases-05, 23 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-coinrg-
use-cases-05>.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
[I-D.irtf-nmrg-ai-challenges]
François, J., Clemm, A., Papadimitriou, D., Fernandes, S.,
and S. Schneider, "Research Challenges in Coupling
Artificial Intelligence and Network Management", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-nmrg-ai-challenges-
03, 4 March 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-irtf-nmrg-ai-challenges-03>.
[I-D.lcsr-alto-service-functions]
Contreras, L. M., Randriamasy, S., and X. Liu, "ALTO
extensions for handling Service Functions", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lcsr-alto-service-
functions-02, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lcsr-alto-
service-functions-02>.
[I-D.llc-teas-dc-aware-topo-model]
Lee, Y., Liu, X., and L. M. Contreras, "DC aware TE
topology model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
llc-teas-dc-aware-topo-model-03, 10 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-llc-teas-dc-
aware-topo-model-03>.
[I-D.rcr-opsawg-operational-compute-metrics]
Randriamasy, S., Contreras, L. M., Ros-Giralt, J., and R.
Schott, "Joint Exposure of Network and Compute Information
for Infrastructure-Aware Service Deployment", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-rcr-opsawg-operational-
compute-metrics-05, 31 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rcr-opsawg-
operational-compute-metrics-05>.
[ITU] "Functional architecture for intelligent network status
awareness based on federated learning", April 2024.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7149>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7426>.
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
[RFC8597] Contreras, LM., Bernardos, CJ., Lopez, D., Boucadair, M.,
and P. Iovanna, "Cooperating Layered Architecture for
Software-Defined Networking (CLAS)", RFC 8597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8597, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8597>.
[RFC8921] Boucadair, M., Ed., Jacquenet, C., Zhang, D., and P.
Georgatsos, "Dynamic Service Negotiation: The Connectivity
Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP)", RFC 8921,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8921, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8921>.
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8969>.
[RFC9418] Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lucente, P., Fasano, P., and T.
Arumugam, "A YANG Data Model for Service Assurance",
RFC 9418, DOI 10.17487/RFC9418, July 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9418>.
[RFC9419] Arkko, J., Hardie, T., Pauly, T., and M. Kühlewind,
"Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration
Using Path Signals", RFC 9419, DOI 10.17487/RFC9419, July
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9419>.
[TMV] "Service performance measurement methods over 5G
experimental networks", May 2021.
Acknowledgments
This work has been partially funded by the European Union under
Horizon Europe projects NEMO (NExt generation Meta Operating system)
grant number 101070118, and CODECO (COgnitive, Decentralised Edge-
Cloud Orchestration), grant number 101092696.
Authors' Addresses
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
28050 Madrid
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
URI: http://lmcontreras.com
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CLAS Evolution July 2024
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
35000 Rennes
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica
Seville
Spain
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Contreras, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 19]