SUPA Value Proposition

Network Working Group                                          M. Klyus
Internet Draft                                               NetCracker
Intended status: Standard Track                            J. Strassner
Expires: September 21, 2016                                      W. Liu
                                                         G. Karagiannis
                                                    Huawei Technologies
                                                                  J. Bi
                                                    Tsinghua University
                                                           Mar 21, 2016

                        SUPA Value Proposition


   Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA) defines a set of rules
   that define how services are designed, delivered, and operated
   within an operator's environment independent of any one particular
   service or networking device. SUPA expresses policy rules using a
   generic policy information model, which serves as a unifying
   influence to enable different data model implementations to be
   simultaneously developed.

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), its areas, and its working
   groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute working
   documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   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 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. Problem Statement.........................................4
      1.2. Proposed Solution.........................................4
      1.3. Value of the SUPA Approach ...............................5
   2. Framework for Generic Policy-based Management..................6
      2.1. Overview..................................................6
      2.2. Operation.................................................8
      2.3. The GPIM and the EPRIM ...................................9
      2.4. Creation of Generic YANG Modules .........................9
   3. Application of Generic Policy-based Management................10
      3.1. ECA Examples.............................................10
   4. Related Work..................................................11
      4.1. Related Work within the IETF.............................11
         4.1.1. I2RS Working Group..................................11
         4.1.2. L3SM Working Group..................................11
         4.1.3. ALTO Working Group..................................12
         4.1.4. TEAS Working Group..................................12
         4.1.5. BESS Working Group..................................12
         4.1.6. SFC Working Group...................................13
         4.1.7. NVO3 Working Group..................................13
         4.1.8. ACTN BoF (IETF-90)..................................13
         4.1.9. Previous IETF Policy Models.........................14
      4.2. Related Work outside the IETF............................14
         4.2.1. TM Forum............................................14
         4.2.2. MEF.................................................15
         4.2.3. Open Daylight.......................................15
         4.2.4. Open Networking Foundation..........................16
         4.2.5. OpenStack...........................................16
         4.2.6. The NEMO Project (Not a BoF Yet)....................17
         4.2.7. The Floodlight Project..............................17
         4.2.8. The ONOS Project....................................17
   5. Conclusions - Value of SUPA...................................17
   6. Security Considerations.......................................18
   7. IANA Considerations...........................................18
   8. Contributors..................................................18
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................18

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   10. References...................................................19
      10.1. Informative References..................................19
   Authors' Addresses ..............................................20

1. Introduction

   The rapid growth in the variety and importance of traffic flowing
   over increasingly complex enterprise and service provider network
   architectures makes the task of network operations and management
   applications and deploying new services much more difficult. In
   addition, network operators want to deploy new services quickly
   and efficiently. Two possible mechanisms for dealing with this
   growing difficulty are the use of software abstractions to
   simplify the design and configuration of monitoring and control
   operations and the use of programmatic control over the
   configuration and operation of such networks. Policy-based
   management can be used to combine these two mechanisms into an
   extensible framework.

   Policy rules can be used to express high-level network operator
   requirements directly, or from a set of management applications,
   to a network management or element system. The network management
   or element system can then control the configuration and/or
   monitoring of network elements and services.

   Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA) will define a generic
   policy information model (GPIM) [SUPA-info-model] for use in network
   operations and management applications. The GPIM defines concepts
   and terminology needed by policy management indepednent of the form
   and content of the policy rule. The ECA Policy Rule Information
   Model (EPRIM) [SUPA-info-model] extends the GPIM to define how to
   build policy rules according to the event-condition-action paradigm.

   Both the GPIM and the EPRIM are targeted at controlling the
   configuration and monitoring of network elements throughout the
   service development and deployment lifecycle. The GPIM and the EPRIM
   will both be translated into corresponding YANG [RFC6020] modules
   that define policy concepts, terminology, and rules in a generic and
   interoperable manner; additional YANG modules may also be defined
   from the GPIM and/or EPRIM to manage specific functions.

   The key benefit of policy management is that it enables different
   network elements and services to be instructed to behave the same
   way, even if they are programmed differently. Management
   applications will benefit from using policy rules that enable
   scalable and consistent programmatic control over the
   configuration and monitoring of network elements and services.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

1.1. Problem Statement

   Network operators must construct networks of increasing size
   and complexity in order to improve their availability and
   quality, as more and more business services depend on them.

   Currently, different technologies and network elements require
   different forms of the same policy that governs the production of
   network configuration snippets. The power of policy management is
   its applicability to many different types of systems, services,
   and networking devices. This provides significant improvements in
   configuration agility, error detection, and uptime for operators.

   Many different types of actors can be identified that can use a
   policy management system, including applications, end-users,
   developers, network administrators, and operators. Each of these
   actors typically has different skills and uses different concepts
   and terminologies. For example, an operator may want to express
   that only Platinum and Gold users can use streaming and interactive
   multimedia applications. As a second example, an operator may want
   to define a more concrete policy rule that looks at the number of
   dropped packets. If, for example, this number exceeds a certain
   threshold value, then the applied queuing, dropping and
   scheduling algorithms could be changed in order to reduce the
   number of dropped packets. The power of SUPA is that both of these
   examples may be abstracted. For example, in the latter example,
   different thresholds and algorithms could be defined for different
   classes of service.

1.2. Proposed Solution

   SUPA enables network operators to express policies to control
   network configuration and monitoring data models in a generic
   manner. The configuration and monitoring processes are independent
   of device, as well as domain or type of application, and result in
   configuration according to YANG data models.

   Both of the examples in section 1.1 can be referred to as "policy
   rules", but they take very different forms, since they are defined
   at different levels of abstraction and likely authored by different
   actors. The first example described a very abstract policy rule, and
   did not contain any technology-specific terms, while the second
   example included more concrete policy rules and likely used
   technical terms of a general (e.g., IP address range and port
   numbers) as well as vendor-specific nature (e.g., specific
   algorithms implemented in a particular device). Furthermore,
   these two policy rules could affect each other. For example,
   Gold and Platinum users might need different device
   configurations to give the proper QoS markings to their
   streaming multimedia traffic. This is very difficult to do if a
   common policy framework does not exist.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   Note that SUPA is not limited to any one type of technology.
   While the above two policies could be considered "QoS"
   policies, other examples include:

     - network elements must not accept passwords for logins

     - all SNMP agents in this network must drop all SNMP traffic
       unless it is originating from, or targeting, the
       management network

     - Periodically perform workload consolidation if average CPU
       utilization falls below X%

   The above three examples are not QoS related; this emphasizes the
   utility of the SUPA approach in being able to provide policies
   to control different types of network element configuration and/or
   monitoring snippets.

   There are many types of policies. SUPA differentiates between
   "management policies" and "embedded policies". Management
   policies are used to control the configuration of network
   elements. Management policies can be interpreted externally to
   network elements, and the interpretation typically results in
   configuration changes of collections of network elements. In
   contrast, "embedded policies" are policies that are embedded
   in the configuration of network elements, and are usually
   interpreted on network elements in isolation. Since embedded
   policies are interpreted in the network device, they are
   typically composed in a very specific fashion to run at
   near-realtime timescales.

1.3. Value of the SUPA Approach

   SUPA will achieve an optimization and reduction in the amount of
   work required to define and implement policy-based data models in
   the IETF. This is due to the generic and extensible framework
   provided by SUPA.

   SUPA defines policy independent of where it is located. Other
   WGs are working on embedding policy in the configuration of a
   network element; SUPA is working on defining policies that
   can be interpreted external to network elements (i.e., management
   policies). Hence, SUPA policies can be used to define the behavior
   of and interaction between embedded policies.

   Since the GPIM defines common policy terminology and concepts, it
   can be used to both define more specific policies as part of a
   data model as well as derive a (more abstract) information model
   from a (more specific) data model.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   This latter approach may be of use in discovering common structures
   that occur in data models that have been designed in isolation of
   each other.

   The SUPA policy framework defines a set of consistent, flexible,
   and scalable mechanisms for monitoring and controlling resources
   and services. It may be used to create a management and operations
   interface that can enable existing IETF data models, such as those
   from I2RS and L3SM, to be managed in a unified way that is
   independent of application domain, technology and vendor. Resource
   and service management become more effective, because policy
   defines the context that different operations, such as configuration
   and monitoring, are applied to.

2. Framework for Generic Policy-based Management

   This section briefly describes the design and operation of the
   SUPA policy-based management framework.

2.1. Overview

   Figure 1 shows a simplified functional architecture of how SUPA is
   used to define policies for creating network element configuration
   and monitoring snippets. SUPA uses the GPIM to define a consensual
   vocabulary that different actors can use to interact with network
   elements and services. The EPRIM defines a generic structure for
   imperative policies. The GPIM, as well as the combination of the
   GPIM and EPRIM, are converted to generic YANG data modules. The
   IETF produces the modules, and IANA is used to register the module
   and changes to it.

   In the preferred approach, SUPA generic policy data modules are
   then used to create vendor- and technology-specific data models.
   These define the specific elements that will be controlled by
   policies. The Policy Interface uses this information to create
   appropriate input mechanisms for the operator to define policies
   (e.g., a web form or a script) for creating and managing the
   network configuration. The operator interacts with the interface,
   which is then translated to configuration snippets. Note that the
   policy interface is NOT being designed in SUPA.

   In one of possibly several alternate approaches (shown with
   asterisks in Figure 1), the SUPA generic policy YANG data modules
   contain enough information for the Policy Interface to create
   appropriate input mechanisms for the operator to define policies.
   This transfers the work of building vendor- and technology-specific
   data models to the SUPA Data Model-Specific Translation Function.
   In either case, the output may then either be used as is, or goals
   through a subsequent set of transformations before it is ready to
   be consumed by the target device or management system.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

     +----------+       \| SUPA Generic Policy |
     |   IETF   |---+----|  Information Model  |
     +----------+   |   /|                     |
                    |    +---------+-----------+
                    |              |
        Assignments |              | Defines Policy Concepts
         and Manage |              |
          Content   |             \|/
                    |    +---------+-----------+  Preferred
                    |   \| SUPA GPIM and EPRIM |  Approach
                    +----|    Generic YANG     |------------+
                        /|    Data Modules     |            |
                         +---------+-----------+            |
                                   *                        |
                                   *  Possible              |
                                   *  Approach              |
                                   *                        |
  |  Management System             *                        |         |
  |                                *                        |         |
  |                               \*/                      \|/        |
  |             Fills   +----------+----------+    +--------|------+  |
  | +--------+  Forms  \|  Policy Interface   |/   |Technology and |  |
  | |Operator|----------|  (locally defined   +----|Vendor-specific|  |
  | +--------+  Runs   /| forms, scripts,...) |\   |  Data Models  |  |
  |            Scripts  +----------+----------+    +-------+-------+  |
  |                               /| \                                |
  |                                |                                  |
  |                                | Produces Policy Rules            |
  |                                |                                  |
  |                               \|/                                 |
  |                     +----------+--------+                         |
  |                     | Policy Management |                         |
  |                     |     Functions     |                         |
  |                     +----------+--------+                         |
  |                                |                                  |
  |                                |                                  |
  |                                +---------------------+            |
  |          Optional Additional   |                     |            |
  |            Transformation     \|/                   \|/           |
  |                +---------------+-------+     +-------+--------+   |
  |   Local SUPA   | YANG-to-device and/or |    \|  Local Devices |   |
  |   Execution    |  Technology-Specific  +-----+ and Management |   |
  |   Environment  | Translation Functions |    /|     Systems    |   |
  |                +-----------------------+     +----------------+   |
  |                                                                   |

                     Figure 1. SUPA Framework

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   Figure 1 is exemplary. The Operator actor shown in Figure 1 can
   interact with SUPA in other ways not shown in Figure 1. In addition,
   other actors (e.g., an application developer) that can interact with
   SUPA are not shown for simplicity.

   The EPRIM defines an Event-Condition-Action (ECA) policy as an
   example of imperative policies. An ECA policy rule is activated
   when its event clause is true; the condition clause is then
   evaluated and, if true, signals the execution of one or more
   actions in the action clause. Imperative policy rules require
   additional management functions, which is explained in section
   2.2 below.

2.2. Operation

   SUPA can be used to define various types of policies, including
   policies that affect services and/or the configuration of
   individual or groups of network elements. SUPA can be used by a
   centralized and/or distributed set of entities for creating,
   managing, interacting with, and retiring policy rules.

   The duties of the Policy Management Function (PMF) depend on the
   type and nature of policies being used. For example, imperative
   (e.g., ECA) policies require conflict detection and resolution,
   while declarative policies do not. A short exemplary list of
   functions that are common to many types of policies include:

      o policy creation, update, delete, and view functions
        (typically in conjunction with policy repositories)
      o policy storage, search, and retrieval (typically uses
        distributed repositories that the PMF communicates with)
      o policy distribution (typically uses a message bus; note that
        this involves requesting and responding to requests for
        policy decisions as well as distributing policies and
        informing interested entities of policy results)
      o making policy decisions (this SHOULD include more than the
        simple Policy Decision Point function defined in [RFC3198])
      o executing policy decisions (this SHOULD include more than the
        simple Policy Enforcement Point functions defined in [RFC3198])
      o validating that the execution of the policy produced what
        was expected (this is NOT defined in [RFC3198]).

   An exemplary architecture that illustrates these concepts is shown
   in [TR235].

   The SUPA scope is limited to policy information and data models.
   SUPA will not define network resource data models or network
   service data models; both are out of scope. Instead, SUPA will make
   use of network resource data models defined by other WGs or SDOs.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   Declarative policies that specify the goals to achieve but not
   how to achieve those goals (also called "intent-based" policies)
   are out of scope for the initial phase of SUPA.

2.3. The GPIM and the EPRIM

   The GPIM provides a common vocabulary for representing concepts
   that are common to expressing different types of policy, but
   which are independent of language, protocol, repository, and
   level of abstraction.

   This enables different policies at different levels of abstraction
   to form a continuum, where more abstract policies can be translated
   into more concrete policies, and vice-versa. For example, the
   information model can be extended by generalizing concepts from an
   existing data model into the GPIM; the GPIM extensions can then be
   used by other data models.

   The SUPA working group develops models for expressing policy at
   different levels of abstraction. Specifically, two models are
   envisioned (both of which are contained in the Generic Policy
   Information Model block in Figure 1:

   (i) a generic model (the GPIM) that defines concepts and vocabulary
       needed by policy management systems independent of the form and
       content of the policy

   (ii) a more specific model (the EPRIM) that refines the GPIM to
        specify policy rules in an event-condition-action form

2.4. Creation of Generic YANG Modules

   An information model is abstract. As such, it cannot be directly
   instantiated (i.e., objects cannot be created directly from it).
   Therefore, both the GPIM, as well as the combination of the GPIM
   and the EPRIM, are translated to generic YANG modules.

   SUPA will provide guidelines for translating the GPIM (or the
   combination of the GPIM and the EPRIM) into concrete YANG data models
   that define how to manage and communicate policies between systems.
   Multiple imperative policy YANG data models may be instantiated
   from the GPIM (or the combination of the GPIM and the EPRIM). In
   particular, SUPA will specify a set of YANG data models that will
   consist of a base policy model for representing policy management
   concepts independent of the type or structure of a policy, and as
   well, an extension for defining policy rules according to the ECA

   The process of developing the GPIM, EPRIM and the derived/translated
   YANG data models is realized following the sequence shown below.
   After completing this process and if the implementation of the YANG
   data models requires it, the GPIM and EPRIM and the
   derived/translated YANG data models are updated and synchronized.


   Where, (1)=GPIM; (2)=EPRIM; (3)YANG data models;
   (4) Implementation; (3')= update of YANG data models;
   (2')=update of EPRIM; (1') = update of GPIM

   The YANG module derived from the GPIM contains concepts and
   terminology for the common operation and administration of
   policy-based systems, as well as an extensible structure for
   policy rules of different paradigms. The YANG module derived from
   the EPRIM extends the generic nature of the GPIM to represent
   policies using an event-condition-action structure.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016              [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

3. Application of Generic Policy-based Management

   This section provides examples of how SUPA can be used to define
   different types of policies. Examples applied to various domains,
   including system management, operations management, access control,
   routing, and service function chaining, are also included.

3.1. ECA Examples

   ECA policies are rules that consist of an event clause, a condition
   clause, and an action clause.

      Network Service Management Example

         Event:     too many interface alarms received from an
                    L3VPN service
         Condition: alarms resolve to the same interface within a
                    specified time period
         Action:    if error rate exceeds x% then put L3VPN service
                    to Error State and migrate users to one or more
                    new L3VPNs

      Security Management Example

         Event:     anomalous traffic detected in network
         Condition: determine the severity of the traffic
         Action:    apply one or more actions to affected NEs based
                    on the type of the traffic detected (along with
                    other factors, such as the type of resource
                    being attacked if the traffic is determined to
                    be an attack)

      Traffic Management Examples

         Event:     edge link close to being overloaded by
                    incoming traffic
         Condition: if link utilization exceeds Y% or if link
                    utilization average is increasing over a
                    specified time period
         Action:    change routing configuration to other peers
                    that have better metrics

         Event:     edge link close to be overloaded by
                    outgoing traffic
         Condition: if link utilization exceeds Z% or if link
                    utilization average is increasing over a
                    specified time period
         Action:    reconfigure affected nodes to use source-based
                    routing to balance traffic across multiple links

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

      Service Management Examples

         Event:     alarm received or periodic time period check
         Condition: CPU utilization level comparison
         Action:    no violation: no action
                      1) determine workload profile in time interval
                      2) determine complementary workloads (e.g.,
                         whose peaks are at different times in day)
                      3) combine workloads (e.g., using integer

         Event:     alarm received or periodic time check
         Condition: if DSCP == AFxy and
                    throughput < T% or packet loss > P%
         Action:    no: no action
                    yes: remark to AFx'y'; reconfigure queuing;
                    configure shaping to S pps; ...

   Note: it is possible to construct an ECA policy rule that is
   directly tied to configuration parameters.

4. Related Work

4.1. Related Work within the IETF

4.1.1. I2RS Working Group

   I2RS defines an interface that interacts with the routing
   system using a collection of protocol-based control or
   management interfaces. Users of I2RS interfaces are typically
   management applications and controllers. SUPA does not directly
   interface to the routing system. Rather, SUPA uses data
   produced by I2RS (e.g., topological information) to construct
   its policies.

4.1.2. L3SM Working Group

   L3SM defines an L3 VPN service model that can be used for
   communication between customers and network operators. This
   model enables an orchestration application or customers to
   request network services provided by L3 VPN technologies. The
   implementation of network services is often guided by specific
   policies, and SUPA provides a tool that can help with the
   mapping of L3 VPN service requests to L3 VPN configurations of
   network elements.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

4.1.3. ALTO Working Group

   The ALTO working group defined an architecture for exposing
   topology information, more specifically the cost of paths
   through an infrastructure, as defined in [RFC7285]. ALTO
   services are able to provide network maps defined as groups of
   endpoints, and can therefore represent any granularity of network,
   from the physical to groups of networks following similar paths or
   restraints. Although this model can represent different levels of
   granularities, it is not clear if it could be adapted easily for
   other purposes than providing cost maps in the context of ALTO.
   The ALTO model is meant to be used outside of the trust domain of
   an ISP by external clients.

   SUPA does not generate data that is similar to ALTO. Rather,
   SUPA could use ALTO data as part of its policies to configure
   services and/or resources.

4.1.4. TEAS Working Group

   The Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
   working group is responsible for defining MPLS- and GMPLS-based
   Traffic Engineering architectures that enable operators to
   control how specific traffic flows are treated within their
   networks. It covers YANG models for a traffic engineering
   database. In coordination with other working groups (I2RS)
   providing YANG models for network topologies.

   Both TEAS and SUPA use YANG data models. SUPA does not generate
   traffic engineering (TE) data. However, SUPA could use TE data
   as part of its policies for configuring resources and/or
   services. SUPA could also define policies that define which
   service, path, and link properties to use for a given customer,
   and consequently, which protocol extensions to use. TEAS data
   could also be used to enable operators to define how particular
   traffic flows are treated in a more abstract (but still
   consistent) manner.

4.1.5. BESS Working Group

   The BGP Enabled Services (BESS) working group defines and
   extends network services that are based on BGP. This includes
   BGP/MPLS IP provider-provisioned L3VPNs, L2VPNs, BGP-enabled
   VPN solutions for use in data center networking, and extensions
   to BGP-enabled solutions to construct virtual topologies in
   support of services such as Service Function Chaining. The
   working group is also chartered to work on BGP extensions to
   YANG models and data models for BGP-enabled services.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   Both BESS and SUPA use YANG data models. SUPA could generate
   BGP configurations by using data defined by BESS as part of
   its policies for configuring resources and/or services.

   SUPA could also define policies that govern different aspects
   of services defined by BESS.

4.1.6. SFC Working Group

   The Service Function Chaining (SFC) working group defines a
   mechanism where traffic is classified; that classification is
   then use to select an ordered set of services to pass the
   traffic through.

   Both SFC and SUPA use YANG data models. SUPA could define
   policies that augment the functionality of SFC in several
   different ways, including: (1) path selection based on context,
   (2) which set of mechanisms to use to steer traffic through
   which set of service functions, (3) simplify the definition of
   dynamic service function chains (e.g., service paths that
   change based upon a set of data that is discovered at runtime),
   and (4) scalable mechanisms to monitor and control the
   configuration of SFC components.

4.1.7. NVO3 Working Group

   The NVO3 group proposes a way to virtualize the network edge
   for data centers in order to be able to move virtual instances
   without impacting their network configuration. This is realized
   through a centrally controlled overlay layer-3 network. The
   NVO3 work is not about defining policy information; rather, it
   uses policy information to perform some functions. Both NVO3 and
   SUPA use YANG data models. SUPA could define policies that define
   how the logically centralized network virtualization management
   entity (or entities) of NVO3 behave (e.g., the functions in the
   network virtualization control plane).

4.1.8. ACTN BoF (IETF-90)

   The ACTN proposed work, as described in [actn] framework, has
   two main goals, the abstraction of multiple optical transport
   domains into a single controller offering a common abstract
   topology, and the splitting of that topology into abstract
   client views that are usually a fraction of the complete
   network. The ACTN work is therefore about unification of
   several physical controllers into a virtual one, and also about
   the segmentation, isolation and sharing of network resources.
   The ACTN work is not about defining policy information. Both ACTN
   and SUPA use YANG data models. SUPA could define policies that
   define the behavior of the controller.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

4.1.9. Previous IETF Policy Models

   SUPA is technology-neutral, previous RFCs weren't. SUPA defines a
   common structure from which ECA policies can be defined; this was
   not possible in previous RFCs. Previous RFCs do NOT define metadata,
   and do NOT enable policies to formally define obligation,
   permission, and related concepts. Finally, SUPA uses software
   patterns, which previous RFCs didn't.

   A more complete analysis is in Appendix A of [SUPA-info-model].

4.2. Related Work outside the IETF

4.2.1. TM Forum

   The TM Forum (a.k.a., the TeleManagement Forum) develops standards
   and best practices, research, and collaborative programs focused on
   digital business transformation. It consists of three major

      1) Agile Business and IT
      2) Customer Centricity (experience)
      3) Open Digital Ecosystem

   Of these, the ZOOM (Zero-touch Orchestration, Operations, and
   Management) project, located in the Agile Business and IT project,
   is the main sub-project in this area that is of interest to SUPA.

   Within ZOOM, the Foundational Studies project contains work on
   an information model and management architecture that are
   directly relevant to SUPA. The TMF Information Model, Policy,
   and Security working groups are involved in this work.

   The ZOOM information model updates the existing Shared
   Information and Data (SID) information model to add support for
   the management of physical and virtual infrastructure, event-
   and data-driven systems, policy management (architecture and
   model), metadata for describing and prescribing behavior that can
   support changes at runtime, and access control. The policy
   information model defines imperative (ECA), declarative (intent-
   based), utility function, and promise policies. The work in
   [SUPA-info-model] is based on, but extends and enhances, the
   ZOOM ECA model and provides additional detail not currently
   present in ZOOM.

   There is currently no plan to use the utility function and
   promise policies of ZOOM in SUPA. Finally, it should be noted
   that the data model work planned for SUPA is not currently
   planned for the ZOOM project.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

4.2.2. MEF

   The MEF (originally named the Metro Ethernet Forum) develops
   architecture, service and management specifications related to
   Carrier Ethernet (CE). The CE architecture includes the definition
   of several interfaces specific to CE like the User Network Interface
   (UNI) and External Network Network Interface (ENNI). Specifications
   developed in this space include the definitions of CE services, CE
   service attributes, Ethernet Access Services, Class of Service, OAM
   and Management interfaces, Service Activation and Test. The more
   recent vision of the MEF is described as The Third Network, and
   includes plans to develop Lifecycle Service Orchestration with APIs
   for existing network, NFV, and SDN implementations enabling Agile,
   Assured, and Orchestrated Services. This stage of the MEF activity
   is now in early phases with focus on architectural work.

   The MEF has developed a number of Information and Data Models, and
   has recently started a project that uses YANG to model and manage
   the services defined by the MEF. While the MEF has created rigorous
   definitions of these services, they are specific to transport
   technology, and they do not currently include and rely on policies.

4.2.3. Open Daylight

   Open Daylight network controller implements a number of models
   through its service abstraction Layer (MD-SAL) based on draft
   IETF Yang models. Open Daylight is an open source project. Two of
   these could be relevant to SUPA in the future (since they both are
   focused on declarative policies, which are currently out of scope
   for SUPA) and are described below. Network Intent Composition (NIC)

   The Network Intent Composition project aims at providing better
   flexibility by using declarative policies. It does not cover
   other types of policies, such as ECA policy rules. The intent-
   based interface aims to provide a high level of abstraction,
   primarily for use by an application developer. Its progress
   has recently stalled. Group Based Policy

   The Group Based Policy project defines an application-centric
   policy model for Open Daylight that separates information about
   application connectivity requirements from information about
   the underlying details of the network infrastructure. The model
   is positioned as declarative, but uses a relational approach to
   specifying policy. It does not cover other types of policies,
   such as ECA policy rules.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

4.2.4. Open Networking Foundation

   The ONF created a group responsible of defining northbound
   interfaces, but this hasn't lead to the publication of
   standards in this area so far. A blog entry on the ONF web site
   showed an interest in using the principle of intents at ONF,
   but no details were provided on the status of this project. A
   members-only whitepaper was recently published.

4.2.5. OpenStack

   OpenStack software controls large pools of compute, storage,
   and networking resources throughout a datacenter, managed
   through a dashboard or via the OpenStack API. OpenStack works
   with popular enterprise and open source technologies making it
   ideal for heterogeneous infrastructure. Few of the below
   mentioned OpenStack projects provides policy abstraction and
   better flexibility to the user. Group-Based Policy

   The Group-Based Policy project for OpenStack Neutron is built
   around entities assembled in Endpoints Groups (EPG) that
   provide or consume Contracts. Such Contracts are hierarchical
   entities containing policy rules. A first version was released
   in January 2015, based on the Juno release. This type of
   approach is more relational than declarative, but could be used
   to describe a large amount of possible scenarios. It has the
   advantage of providing a relatively simple policy model that
   covers a large applicability. From an OpenStack point of view,
   the scope of Group-Based Policies is limited to networking
   within the Neutron module. Note that other types of policies, such
   as ECA policies, are not covered in Group-Based Policy. Congress

   The Congress project within OpenStack provides a way to define
   complex policies using extensions to the Datalog language.
   Datalog is entirely declarative, and its evaluation is based on
   first-order logic with restrictions. This gives it interesting
   properties, such as providing the same result no matter the order
   in which the statements are made. The language allows for the
   definition of types and for active enforcement or verification
   of the policies. However, it does not cover ECA policies.

   There is a significant body of knowledge and experience relating
   to declarative languages and their implementation. Congress
   policies aim at manipulating objects exposed by multiple
   OpenStack modules, and is therefore larger in scope than network
   element policies.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

4.2.6. The NEMO Project (not a BoF yet)

   The NEMO project is a research activity aimed at defining a
   simple framework for "intent-based" networking. This project
   concentrates on creating a domain-specific language and associated
   API, not a model or even a rigorous definition of what a policy
   rule is. NEMO does not define ECA policies.

   The NEMO syntax defines a very simple information model that has
   three basic elements for network manipulation: nodes, links, and
   flows. A policy rule is NOT defined in this model. Rather, policy
   is defined as a command. The NEMO project has been successfully
   demonstrated at IETF-91, along with a companion graphical user

   NEMO declarative policies use a flatter, simpler object model with
   fewer objects to represent targets of policy. NEMO uses a condition-
   action paradigm to execute its declarative policies. In contrast,
   SUPA uses a richer class model to represent ECA policies. However,
   SUPA has not proposed a language.

4.2.7. The Floodlight Project

   The Floodlight is an OpenFlow-enabled SDN controller. It uses
   another open source project called Indigo to support OpenFlow
   and manage southbound devices. The Indigo agent also supports
   an abstraction layer to make it easy to integrate with physical
   and virtual switches. It supports configuration of an abstraction
   layer so that it can configure OpenFlow in hybrid mode.

4.2.8. The ONOS Project

   The ONOS is an SDN controller design for Service Provider networks.
   It uses a distributed architecture, and supports abstraction for
   both southbound and northbound interfaces. Its modules are managed
   as OSGi bundles. It is an open source project. ONOS announced an
   "application-intent framework". However, no object model or
   language has been defined yet.

5. Conclusions: the Value of SUPA

   SUPA can be used to define high-level, possibly network-wide
   policies to create interoperable network element configuration
   snippets. SUPA expresses policies and associated concepts using a
   generic policy information model, and produces generic policy YANG
   data modules. SUPA focuses on management policies that control the
   configuration of network elements. Management policies can be
   interpreted outside of network elements, and the interpretation
   typically results in configuration changes to collections of
   network elements.

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   Policies embedded in the configuration of network elements are not
   in the scope of SUPA. In contrast to policies targeted by SUPA,
   embedded policies are usually interpreted on network elements in
   isolation, and often at timescales that require the representation
   of embedded policies to be optimized for a specific purpose.

   The SUPA information model generalizes common concepts from multiple
   technology-specific data models, and makes it reusable.
   Conceptually, SUPA can be used to interface and manage existing and
   future data models produced by other IETF working groups. In
   addition, by defining an object-oriented information model with
   metdata, the characteristics and behavior of data models can be
   better defined.

6. Security Considerations


7. IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

8. Contributors

   The following people all contributed to creating this document,
   listed in alphabetical order:

      Vikram Choudhary, Huawei Technologies
      Luis M. Contreras, Telefonica I+D
      Dan Romascanu, Avaya
      J. Schoenwaelder, Jacobs University, Germany
      Qiong Sun, China Telecom
      Parviz Yegani, Juniper Networks

9. Acknowledgments

   This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments
   and proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
   alphabetical order: H. Rafiee, J. Saperia and C. Zhou.

   The initial draft of this document merged one document, and this
   section lists the acknowledgements from it.

   From Problem Statement for Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
   (SUPA)"   [Karagiannis2015]

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 18]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

   The authors of this draft would like to thank the following
   persons for the provided valuable feedback and contributions:
   Diego Lopez, Spencer Dawkins, Jun Bi, Xing Li, Chongfeng Xie, Benoit
   Claise, Ian Farrer, Marc Blancet, Zhen Cao, Hosnieh Rafiee, Mehmet
   Ersue, Simon Perreault, Fernando Gont, Jose Saldana, Tom Taylor,
   Kostas Pentikousis, Juergen Schoenwaelder, John Strassner, Eric Voit,
   Scott O. Bradner, Marco Liebsch, Scott Cadzow, Marie-Jose Montpetit.
   Tina Tsou, Will Liu and Jean-Francois Tremblay contributed to an
   early version of this draft.

   The authors of "Problem Statement for Simplified Use of Policy
   Abstractions (SUPA)"   [Karagiannis2015] were:

      Georgios Karagiannis
      Qiong Sun
      Luis M. Contreras
      Parviz Yegani
      John Strassner
      Jun Bi

10. References

10.1. Normative References

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

10.2. Informative References

   [RFC3198]   Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J.,
   Scherling, M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M.,
   Perry, J., Waldbusser, S., "Terminology for Policy-Based
   Management", RFC 3198, November, 2001

   [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
   Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, October 2010.

   [RFC7285] R. Alimi, R. Penno, Y. Yang, S. Kiesel, S. Previdi, W.
   Roome, S. Shalunov, R. Woundy "Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", September 2014

   [SUPA-info-model] J. Strassner, J. Halpern, J. Coleman, "Generic
   Policy Information Model for Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
   (SUPA)", IETF Internet draft, draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-
   info-model-04, February 2016

   [TR235] J. Strassner, ed., "ZOOM Policy Architecture and
   Information Model Snapshot", TR245, part of the TM Forum ZOOM
   project, October 26, 2014

   [Karagiannis2015] G. Karagiannis, ed., "Problem Statement for
   Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA)", IETF Internet draft,
   draft-karagiannis-supa-problem-statement-07, June 5, 2015

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 19]

Internet-Draft            SUPA - Proposition                 March 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Maxim Klyus, Ed.
   Kozhevnicheskaya str.,7 Bldg. #1
   Moscow, Russia

   John Strassner, Ed.
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA 95138 USA

   Will(Shucheng) Liu
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
   P.R. China

   Georgios Karagiannis
   Huawei Technologies
   Hansaallee 205, 40549 Dusseldorf

   Jun Bi
   Tsinghua University
   Network Research Center, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R. China

Klyus, et al.          Expires September 21, 2016             [Page 20]