Network Working Group C. Li
Internet Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Informational O. Havel
Expires: May 2020 W. Liu
Huawei Technologies
P. Martinez-Julia
NICT
J. Nobre
UFRGS
D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
November 18, 2019
Intent Classification
draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
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
http://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 May 18, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Liu, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
RFC7575 defines Intent as an abstract high-level policy used to
operate the network. Intent management system includes an interface
for users to input requests and an engine to translate the intents
into the network configuration and manage their lifecycle. Up to
now, there is no commonly agreed definition, interface or model of
intent.
This document discusses what intent means to different stakeholders,
describes different ways to classify intent, and an associated
taxonomy of this classification. This is a foundation for discussion
intent related topics.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Acronyms .................................................... 4
3. Abstract intent requirements ................................. 4
3.1. What is Intent? ......................................... 4
3.2. Intent Solutions & Intent Users ......................... 5
3.3. Current Problems & Requirements ......................... 6
3.4. Intent Types that need to be supported .................. 7
4. Functional Characteristics and Behavior ...................... 9
4.1. Persistence ............................................ 9
4.2. Feedback ............................................... 9
4.3. Hierarchy ............................................. 10
4.4. Abstracting Intent Operation ........................... 11
4.5. Policy Subjects and Policy Targets ..................... 11
4.6. Policy Scope .......................................... 11
5. Intent Classification Table Example ......................... 13
5.1. Intent Classification Table Example (Carrier Solution).. 14
5.1.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 14
5.1.2. Intent Categories ................................. 16
5.2. Intent Classification Table Example (Data Center Solutions)
........................................................... 18
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.2.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 18
5.2.2. Intent Categories ................................. 20
5.3. Intent Classification Table Example (Enterprise Solution)22
5.3.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 22
5.3.2. Intent Categories ................................. 23
6. The Policy Continuum ........................................ 25
7. Involvement of intent in the application of AI to Network Manage
ment .......................................................... 25
8. Security Considerations ..................................... 27
9. IANA Considerations ........................................ 27
10. Contributors .............................................. 27
11. Acknowledgments ........................................... 27
12. References ................................................ 27
12.1. Normative References .................................. 27
12.2. Informative References ................................ 28
1. Introduction
Different SDOs, including IETF [ANIMA], ONF [ONF], ONOS [ONOS], have
proposed intent as a declarative interface for defining a set of
network operations to execute.
Although there is no common definition or model of intent which are
agreed by all SDOs, there are several shared principles:
o intent should be declarative, using and depending on as few
deployment details as possible and focusing on what and not how
o intent should provide an easy-to-use interface, and use
terminology and concepts familiar to its target audience
o intent should be vendor-independent and portable across
platforms
o the intent framework should be able to detect and resolve
conflicts between multiple intents.
SDOs have different perspectives on what intent is, what set of
actors it is intended to serve, and how it should be used. This
document provides several dimensions to classify intents.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
2. Acronyms
CLI: Command Line Interface
SDO: Standards Development Organization
SUPA: Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
VPN: Virtual Private Network
DC: Data Center
3. Abstract intent requirements
In order to understand the different intent requirements that would
drive intent classification, we first need to understand what intent
means for different intent users.
3.1. What is Intent?
The term Intent has become very widely used in the industry for
different purposes, sometimes it is not even in agreement with SDO
shared principles mentioned in the Introduction. Different
stakeholders consider an intent to be an ECA policy, a GBP policy, a
business policy, a network service, a customer service, a network
configuration, application / application group policy, any
operator/administrator task, network troubleshooting / diagnostics /
test, a new app, a marketing term for existing
management/orchestration capabilities, etc. Their intent is
sometimes technical, non-technical, abstract or technology specific.
For some stakeholders, intent is a subset of these and for other
stakeholders intent is all of these. It has in some cases become a
term to replace a very generic 'service' or 'policy' terminology.
While it is easier for those familiar with different standards to
understand what service, CFS, RFS, resource, policy continuum, ECA
policy, declarative policy, abstract policy or intent policy is, it
may be more difficult for the wider audience. Intent is very often
just a synonym for policy. Those familiar with policies understand
the difference between a business, intent, declarative, imperative
and ECA policy. But maybe the wider audience does not understand the
difference and sometimes equates the policy to an ECA policy.
Therefore, it is important to start a discussion in the industry
about what intent is for different solutions and intent users. It is
also imperative to try to propose some intent categories /
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
classifications that could be understood by a wider audience. This
would help us define intent interfaces, DSLs and models.
3.2. Intent Solutions & Intent Users
Different Solutions and Actors have different requirements,
expectations and priorities for intent driven networking. They
require different intent types and have different use cases. Some
users are more technical and require intents that expose more
technical information. Other users do not understand networks and
require intents that shield them from different networking concepts
and technologies. The following are the solutions and intent users
that intent driven networking needs to support:
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Solutions | Intent Users |
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Carrier Networks | Network Operator |
| | Service Designers |
| | Service Operators |
| | Customers/Subscribers |
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| DC Networks | Cloud Administrator |
| | Underlay Network Administrator |
| | App Developers |
| | End Users |
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Enterprise Networks| Enterprise Administrator |
| | App Developers |
| | End Users |
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o For carrier networks scenario, for example, if the end users
wants to watch high-definition video, then the intent is to
convert the video image to 1080p rate for the users.
o For DC networks scenario, administrators have their own clear
network intent such as load balancing. For all traffic flows that
need NFV service chaining, restrict the maximum load of any VNF
node/container below 50% and the maximum load of any network link
below 70%.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o For Enterprise Networks scenario, enterprise administrators
express their intent from an external client(application service
provider).For example, when hosting a video conference, multiple
remote access is required. The intent expressed to the network
operator: For any user of this application, the arrival time of
hologram objects of all the remote tele-presenters should be
synchronised within 50ms to reach the destination viewer for each
conversation session.
3.3. Current Problems & Requirements
Network APIs and CLIs are too complex due to the fact that they
expose technologies & topologies. App developers and end-users do
not want to set IP Addresses, VLANs, subnets, ports, etc. Operators
and administrators would also benefit from the simpler interfaces,
like:
o Allow Customer Site A to be connected to Internet via Network B
o Allow User A to access all internal resources, except the Server
B
o Allow User B to access Internet via Corporate Network A
o Move all Users from Corporate Network A to the Corporate Network
B
o Request Gold VPN service between my sites A, B and C
o Provide CE Redundancy for all Customer Sites
o Add Access Rules to my Service
Networks are complex, with many different protocols and
encapsulations. Some basic questions are not easy to answer:
o Can User A talk to User B?
o Can Host A talk to Host B?
o Are there any loops in my network?
o Are Network A and Network B connected?
o Can User A listen to communications between Users B & C?
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
Operators and Administrators manually troubleshoot and fix their
networks and services. They instead want:
o a reliable network that is self-configured and self-assured based
on the intent
o to be notified about the problem before the user is aware
o automation of network/service recovery based on intent (self-
healing, self-optimization)
o to get suggestions about correction/optimization steps based on
experience (historical data & behaviour)
Therefore, Operators and Administrators want to:
o simplify and automate network operations
o simplify definitions of network services
o provide simple customer APIs for Value Added Services (operators)
o be informed if the network or service is not behaving as
requested
o enable automatic optimization and correction for selected
scenarios
o have systems that learn from historic information and behaviour
End-Users cannot build their own services and policies without
becoming technical experts and they must perform manual maintenance
actions. Application developers and end-users/subscribers want to be
able to:
o build their own network services with their own policies via
simple interfaces, without becoming networking experts
o have their network services up and running based on intent and
automation only, without any manual actions or maintenance
3.4. Intent Types that need to be supported
The following intent types need to be supported, in order to address
the requirements from different solutions and intent users:
o Customer network service intent
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o for customer self-service
o for service operator orders
o for intent driven network configuration, verification,
correction and optimization
o Network resource management
o For network configuration
o For automated lifecycle management of network configurations
o For network resources (switches, routers, routing, policies,
underlay)
o Cloud and cloud resource management
o For DC configuration, VMs, DB Servers, APP Servers
o For communication between VMs
o For cloud resource lifecycle management (policy driven self-
configuration & auto-scaling & recovery/optimization)
o Network Policy intent
o For security, QoS, application policies, traffic steering, etc
o For configuring & monitoring policies, alarms generation for
non-compliance, auto-recovery
o Task based intents
o For network migration
o For server replacements
o For device replacements
o For network software upgrades
o To automate any tasks that operators/administrator often
perform
o System policies intents
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o For intent management system policies
o For design models and policies for network service design
o For design models and policies for network design
o For design workflows, models and policies for task based
intents
o Intents that affect other intents
o It may be task based intent that modifies many other intents.
o The task itself is short-lived, but the modification of other
intents has an impact on their lifecycle, so those changes
must continue to be continuously monitored and self-
corrected/self-optimized.
4. Functional Characteristics and Behavior
Intent can be used to operate immediately on a target (much like
issuing a command), or whenever it is appropriate (e.g., in response
to an event). In either case, intent has a number of behaviors that
serve to further organize its purpose, as described by the following
subsections.
4.1. Persistence
Intents can be classified into transient/persistent intents:
o If intent is transient, it has no lifecycle management. As soon
as the specified operation is successfully carried out, the
intent is finished, and can no longer affect the target object.
o If the intent is persistent, it has lifecycle management. Once
the intent is successfully activated and deployed, the system
will keep all relevant intents active until they are deactivated
or removed.
4.2. Feedback
Intent can be classified by whether it is necessary to feedback the
network information to the intended proponent after the intent is
executed.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o For ordinary users, they don't care how the intent is executed,or
the details of the network. As a result, they don't need to know
the configuration information of the underlying network. They
only focus on whether the intent execution result achieves the
goal, and the execution effect such as the quality of completion
and the length of execution.
o For administrators, such as network administrators, they perform
intents, such as allocating network resources, selecting
transmission paths, handling network failures, etc. They require
multiple feedback indicators for network resource conditions,
congestion conditions, fault conditions, etc. after execution.
4.3. Hierarchy
In different phases of the autonomous driving network[TMF-auto], the
intents are different. A typical example of autonomous driving
network Level 0 to 5 are listed as below.
o Level 0 - Traditional manual network: O&M personnel manually
control the network and obtain network alarms and logs. - No
intent
o Level 1 - Partially automated network: Automated scripts are used
to automate service provisioning, network deployment, and
maintenance. Shallow perception of network status and decision
making suggestions of machine; - No intent
o Level 2 - Automated network: Automation of most service
provisioning, network deployment, and maintenance comprehensive
perception of network status and local machine decision making;
- simple intent on service provisioning
o Level 3 - Self-optimization network: Deep awareness of network
status and automatic network control, meeting users' network
intentions. - Intent based on network status cognition
o Level 4 - Partial autonomous network: In a limited environment,
people do not need to participate in decision-making and adjust
themselves. - Intent based on limited AI
o Level 5 - Autonomous network: In different network environments
and network conditions, the network can automatically adapt to
and adjust to meet people's intentions. - Intent based on AI
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
4.4. Abstracting Intent Operation
The modeling of Policies can be abstracting using the following
three-tuple:
{Context, Capabilities, Constraints}
Context grounds the policy, and determines if it is relevant or not
for the current situation. Capabilities describe the functionality
that the policy can perform. Capabilities take different forms,
depending on the expressivity of the policy as well as the
programming paradigm(s) used. Constraints define any restictions on
the capabilities to be used for that particular context. Metadata
can be optionally attached to each of the elements of the three-
tuple, and may be used to describe how the policy should be used and
how it operates, as well as prescribe any operational dependencies
that must be taken into account. Put another way:
o Context selects policies based on applicability
o Capabilities describe the functionality provided by the policy
o Constraints restrict the capabilities offered and/or the behavior
of the policy
Hence, the difference between imperative, declarative, and other
types of policies lies in how the elements of this three-tuple are
used according to that particular programming paradigm. This is how
[SUPA] was designed: a Policy is a container that aggregates a set
of tatements.
4.5. Policy Subjects and Policy Targets
Policy subject is the actor that performs the action specified in
the policy. It can be the intent management system which executes
the policy. Policy target is a set of managed objects which may be
affected in the policy enforcement.
4.6. Policy Scope
Policies used to manage the behavior of objects that they are
applied to (e.g., the target of the policy). It is useful to
differentiate between the following categories of targets:
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o Policies defined for the Customer or End-User
o Policies defined for the management system to act on objects in
the domain that the management system controls
o Policies defined for the management system to act on objects in
one or more domains that the management system does not directly
control
The different origins and views of these three categories of actors
lead to the following important differences:
o Network Knowledge. This area is explored using three exemplary
actors that have different knowledge of the network:
o Customers and end-users do not necessarily know the functional
and operational details of the network that they are using.
Furthermore, most of the actors in this category lack skills
to understand such details; in fact, such knowledge is
typically not relevant to their job. In addition, the network
may not expose these details to its users. This class of
actor focuses on the applications that they run, and uses
services offered by the network. Hence, they want to specify
policies that provide consistent behavior according to their
business needs. They do not have to worry about how the
policies are deployed onto the underlying network, and
especially, whether the policies need to be translated to
different forms to enable network elements to understand
them.
o Application developers work in a set of abstractions defined
by their application and programming environment(s). For
example, many application developers think in terms of
objects (e.g., a VPN). While this makes sense to the
application developer, most network devices do not have a VPN
object per se; rather, the VPN is formed through a set of
configuration statements for that device in concert with
configuration statements for the other devices that
together make up the VPN. Hence, the view of application
developers matches the services provided by the network,
but may not directly correspond to other views of other
actors.
o Management personnel, such as network Administrators, may have
the knowledge of the underlying network. However, they may
not understand the details of the applications and services
of Customers and End-Users.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
o Automation. Theoricaly, intents from both end-user and management
system can be automated. In practice, most intents from end-user
are created manually according to business request. End-users do
not create or alter intents unless there is change in business.
Intents from management systems can be created or altered to
reflect with network policy change. For example, end-users create
intents to set up paths between hosts, while the management
system creates an intent to set a global link utilization limit.
5. Intent Classification Table Example
This chapter proposes the intent classification table approach that
may help to classify mainstream intent related demos / tools. The
table was created based on the following:
o Comments from Chairs that it would be better to have one table
that would collect all classification info from the text in our
draft, so that it could be used for easy classification of
different tools / demos going forward, starting with the ones
presented at the meeting
o Categories were initially created solely based on info from this
draft and expanded based on some discussions during the NMRG 56th
meeting and some additional categories mentioned during demo
presentations (e.g. Applications, VNFs, Network Scope)
This document contains simplified table split into multiple tables.
The full table would be shared on the web site.
We first classify intents into intent types and describe each type
based on the solution it belongs to and what intent user it is for.
We than present different categories that these intent type can
belong to, based on intent scope, network scope, intent abstraction
and lifecycle.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.1. Intent Classification Table Example (Carrier Solution)
5.1.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
The following table describes the Intent Users in Carrier Solutions
and Intent Types with their descriptions for different intent users.
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Customer/ | Customer | Customer Self-Service with SLA & Value Added |
| Subscriber | Service | Service |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Customer's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
| | Intent | models) that define relationships between |
| | | Customer Intents and Network Service Intents |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Network | Network | Service provided by the Network Service Operator |
| Operator | Service | to the Customer (e.g. the Service Operator). |
| | Intent | This is the 'promise' declared to the customer |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Operator requests network-wide (service |
| | Intent | underlay or other network-wide configuration) or |
| | | network resource configurations (switches, |
| | | routers, routing, policies). Includes |
| | | Connectivity, Routing, QoS, Security, |
| | | Application Policies, Traffic Steering Policies, |
| | | Configuration policies, Monitoring policies, |
| | | alarm generation for non-compliance, |
| | | auto-recovery, etc. No overlap with other intents|
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Network Operator requests execution of any |
| | Task | automated task other than Network Service Intent |
| | Intent | and Network Intent (e.g. Network Migration, |
| | | Server Replacements, Device Replacements, |
| | | Network Software Upgrades. |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Operator's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
| | Intent | models, scripts, workflows) to be used by |
| | | Network Service, Network and Operational Task |
| | | Intents. Workflows can automate any tasks that |
| | | Network Operator often performed in addition to |
| | | Network Service Intents and Network Intents |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Service | Customer | Service Operator's Customer Orders, Customer |
| Operator | Service | Service / SLA |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Service Operator's Network Orders / Network SLA |
| | Service | |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Service Operator requests execution of the any |
| | Task | automated task other than Customer Service Intent|
| | Intent | and Network Service Intent |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Operator's design-time intents (e.g. policies, |
| | Intent | models, scripts, workflows) to be used by |
| | | Network Service, Network and Operational Task |
| | | Intents. Workflows can automate any tasks that |
| | | Network Operator often performed in addition to |
| | | Network Service Intents and Network Intents |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Application | Customer | Customer Service Intent API provided to the |
| Developer | Service | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
| | Intent | external VAS developers / integrators) |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Service Intent API provided to the |
| | Service | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
| | Intent | external) |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Intent API provided to the |
| | Intent | Application Developers (internal DevOps or |
| | | external) |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
| | Task | Application Developers. This is for the trusted |
| | Intent | internal Operator / Service Providers / Customer |
| | | DevOps |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer design policies, models, |
| | Intent | scripts, building blocks and workflows to be used|
| | | by Customer, Service, Network and Operational |
| | | Task Intents. This is for the trusted internal |
| | | Operator / Service Provider / Customer DevOps |
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.1.2. Intent Categories
The following arethe proposed categories:
Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
C4=QoS
Network Function (NF) Scope: C1=VNFs, C2=PNFs
Network Scope: C1=Radio Access, C2=Transport Access,
C3=Transport Aggregation, C4=Transport Core, C5=Cloud Edge,
C6=Cloud Core)
Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback) , see Section 4.2
Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
(Short Lived)
The following is the Classification Table Example for Carrier.
+-------------+-------------+-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | NF | Network | ABS |L-C |
| | | Scope |Scope| Scope | | |
| | +-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Customer/ | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subscriber | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Network | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
+-------------+-------------+-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | NF | Network | ABS |L-C |
| | | Scope |Scope| Scope | | |
| | +-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Service | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Application | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Developer | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.2. Intent Classification Table Example (Data Center Solutions)
5.2.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
The following table describes the Intent Users in DCN Solutions and
Intent Types with their descriptions for different intent users.
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Customer / | Customer | Customer Self-Service via Tenant Portal, |
| Tenants | Intent | Customers may have multiple type of end-users |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Customer's design-time intents (e.g. policies |
| | Intent | models) designed by Customers/Tenants to define|
| | | relationship between Customer and End-User |
| | | Intents and exposed cloud and network service |
| | | intents |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Cloud | Cloud | Configuration of VMs, DB Servers, App Servers, |
| Administrator | Management | Connectivity, Communication between VMs. |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Cloud | Policy-driven self-configuration & |
| | Resource | & recovery / optimization |
| | Management | |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Cloud Administrator requests execution of any .|
| | Task Intent | automated task other than Cloud Management |
| | | Intents and Cloud Resource Management Intents |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Cloud Administrator designs policies, models, |
| | Intent | scripts and/or workflows to be used to realize |
| | | other intents. Automate any tasks that admin |
| | | often performs, in addition to lifecycle of |
| | | Cloud Management Intents and Cloud Management |
| | | Resource Intents. |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Underlay | Underlay | Service created and provided by the Underlay |
| Network | Network | Network Administrator |
| Administrator | Service | |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Administrator requests some |
| | Network | DCN-wide underlay network configuration or |
| | Intent | network resource configurations. |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Underlay Network Administrator requests |
| | Task Intent | execution of the any automated task other than |
| | | Underlay Network Service and Resource Intent. |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Underlay Network Administrator designs models, |
| | Intent | policy intents, scripts and/or workflows to be |
| | | used to realize other intents. Automate any |
| | | tasks that Administrator often performs |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Application | Cloud | Cloud Management Intent API provided to the |
| Developer | Management | Application Developers |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Cloud | Cloud Resource Management Intent API provided |
| | Resource | to the Application Developers |
| | Management | |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Service API provided to the |
| | Network | Application Developers |
| | Service | |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Resource API provided to the |
| | Network | Application Developers |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
| | Task Intent | trusted Application Developer (internal DevOps)|
| +-------------+------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer designs models, policy |
| | Intent | intents & building blocks to be used by other |
| | | intents. This is for the trusted internal DCN |
| | | DevOps. |
+---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.2.2. Intent Categories
The following are the proposed categories:
Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
C4=QoS C5=Storage C6=Compute
DCN Resource (DCN Res) Scope: C1=Virtual, C2=Physical
DCN Network (DCN Net) Scope: C1=Logical, C2=Physical
Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback), see Section 4.2
Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
(Short Lived)
The following is the Classification Table Example for DC Solutions.
+---------------+-------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | DCN | DCN | ABS | L-C |
| | | Scope | Res | Net | | |
| | +-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Customer / | Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Tenants | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Cloud | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Administrator | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
+---------------+-------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | DCN | DCN | ABS | L-C |
| | | Scope | Res | Net | | |
| | +-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Underlay | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Network | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Administrator | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Application | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Developer | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
5.3. Intent Classification Table Example (Enterprise Solution)
5.3.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
The following table describes the Intent Users in Enterprise
Solutions and their Intent Types.
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+------------ -+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| End-User | End-User | Enterprise End User Self-Service or Applications,|
| | Intent | Enterprise may have multiple types of End-Users |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | End-users design time intents (e.g. policies, |
| | Intent | models) that define relationships between |
| | | End-User Intents and Network Service Intents |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Service provided by the Administrator to the |
| Administrator| Service | End-Users and their Applications. |
| (internal or | Intent | This is the 'promise' declared to the end-user |
| MSP) +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Administrator requires network wide configuration|
| | Intent | (e.g. underlay, campus) or resource |
| | | configuration (switches, routers, policies) |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Administrator requests execution of any |
| | Task Intent | automated task other than Network Service |
| | | Intents and Network Intents |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Administrator designs policies, models, script |
| | Intent | and/or workflows to be used by other intents. |
| | | Automate any tasks that Administrator |
| | | often performs. |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+------------ -+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Application | End-User | End-User Service / Application Intent API |
| Developer | Intent | provided to the Application Developers |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Service API Provided to Application |
| | Service | Developers |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network API Provided to Application Developers |
| | Intent | |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided to the |
| | Task Intent | trusted Application Developer (internal DevOps) |
| +-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer designs policies, models, |
| | Intent | scripts & building blocks to be used by other |
| | | intents. This is for the trusted internal DevOps |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------------------+
5.3.2. Intent Categories
The following are the proposed categories:
Intent Scope: C1=Connectivity, C2=Security, C3=Application,
C4=QoS
Enterpise Network (Net) Scope: C1=Campus, C2=Branch, C3=SD-WAN
Abstraction(ABS): C1=Technical(with technical feedback),
C2=Non-technical (without technical feedback), see Section 4.2
Life-cycle (L-C): C1=Persistent (Full life-cycle), C2=Transient
(Short Lived)
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
The following is the Intent Classification Table Example for
Enterprise Solutions.
+---------------+-------------+-----------+--------+-----+-----+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent | Net | ABS | L-C |
| | | Scope | | | |
| | +-----------+--------+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C3|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| End-User | End-User | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Enterprise | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Administrator | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Application | End-User | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Developer | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Service | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
6. The Policy Continuum
The Policy Continuum defines the set of actors that will create,
read, use, and manage policy. Each set of actors has their own
terminology and concepts that they are familiar with. This captures
the fact that business people do not want to use CLI, and network
operations center personnel do not want to use non-technical
languages.
7. Involvement of intent in the application of AI to Network Manage
ment
In the application of AI to NM, an intent is expected to be, on the
one hand, a formal definitions of a goal or policy instructed to the
decision system and, on the other hand, a formal definition of the
specific actions that some network controller must perform. Goal
intents and policy intents have different meanings. The former will
establish an objective for the automated management system to
accomplish, such as "avoiding latency to be higher than 10 ms".
Meanwhile, policy intents set the overall regulations and possible
actions that the AI system can use to achieve those goals. Both goal
and policy intents are expected to be provided by humans, although
they must be in some very formal language that can be easily
understood by computers. All those relations make the degree of
formality an important dimension to classify intents so that users,
which here are AI-based agents, can be able to choose the proper
solution to consume them.
AI technology has played an important role in the different stages
of the intent network implementation.
o Help identify and prevent security threats: Classification
algorithms can attempt to identify malware or other
undesirable web content or usage;
o Intentional translation: use AI algorithm to assist the
translation module, split translation into the requirements
contained in the semantics of the intention; automatic
delivery and execution strategy;Automate tasks and
appropriate network changes based on the existing network
infrastructure configuration according to the policy model;
o Adaptive adjustment: perceive the quality of the user
experience and perform predictive analysis to proactively
optimize performance, such as excessive access time;
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
To enforce the resulting actions determined by AI-based control
modules, action intents will have a format that avoids
misconceptions as much as possible. This means that they will be
closer to machine language structures than natural (human) language
structures. This can sacrificing some degree of human
understandability, so it forms another dimension in the
classification of intents. This dimension allows automated systems
to discern which format of intent to use in relation to the
possibility and degree of humans to be involved in their exchanges.
Finally, as intents can use different words and languages to refer
to the same concepts, all intents related to AI will be required to
follow a specific ontology. This way, input intents will be easily
semantically translated to formal structures. Output intents will
also be composed by following the ontology, so receivers of those
intents will be able to easily understand them.
For instance, in the intent classification, the machine learning
algorithm can be utilized to extract the intent feature values and
classify the intent according to the intent feature distribution.
For example, using artificial intelligence clustering algorithm, a
large number of intents proposed by different users are used as
training data to extract multiple feature dimensions, such as
vocabulary information intended to be used, related feature
parameters, context proposed by the intent, and the like.Cluster
analysis is performed in the same form as the coordinate system, and
multiple categories are classified according to the characteristics
of the sample point distribution. For the input intent later, the
category of the intent is judged based on the similarity with all
categories.
o For specific classification intents, such as safety or fault
information, conditions can be preset in advance, and once a
common error message occurs, it will automatically alarm.
o For the network resource information, set the corresponding
threshold information. When there is a certain number of link
users or the network traffic is too large, the adjustment
intention is started.
o For users with higher priority, the resources can be
configured preferentially.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
8. Security Considerations
This document does not have any Security Considerations.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
10. Contributors
The following people all contributed to creating this document,
listed in alphabetical order:
Ying Chen, China Unicom
Richard Meade, Huawei
John Strassner, Huawei
Xueyuan Sun, China Telecom
Weiping Xu, Huawei
11. Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and
proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
alphabetical order: Brian E Carpenter, Juergen Schoenwaelder,
Laurent Ciavaglia, Xiaolin Song.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575, June
2015.
[RFC8328] Liu, W., Xie, C., Strassner, J., Karagiannis, G., Klyus,
M., Bi, J., Cheng, Y., and D. Zhang, "Policy-Based
Management Framework for the Simplified Use of Policy
Abstractions (SUPA)", March 2018.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
[RFC3198] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J.,
Scherling, M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson,
M., Perry, J., Waldbusser, S., "Terminology for Intent-
driven Management", RFC 3198, November 2001.
12.2. Informative References
[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.
[ANIMA] Du, Z., "ANIMA Intent Policy and Format", 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-du-anima-an-
intent/>.
[ONF] ONF, "Intent Definition Principles", 2017,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-
523_Intent_Definition_Principles.pdf>.
[ONOS] ONOS, "ONOS Intent Framework", 2017,
<https://wiki.onosproject.org/display/ONOS/Intent+Framewor
k/>.
[SUPA] Strassner, J., "Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions",
2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-supa-
generic-policy-info-model/?include_text=1>.
[ANIMA-Prefix] Jiang, S., Du, Z., Carpenter, B., and Q. Sun,
"Autonomic IPv6 Edge Prefix Management in Large-scale
Networks", draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-07 (work in
progress), December 2017.
[TMF-auto] Aaron Richard Earl Boasman-Patel,et, A whitepaper of
Autonomous Networks: Empowering Digital Transformation For
the Telecoms Industry, inform.tmforum.org, 15 May, 2019.
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification November 2019
Authors' Addresses
Chen Li
China Telecom
No.118 Xizhimennei street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100035
P.R. China
Email: lichen.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Olga Havel
Huawei Technologies
Email: olga.havel@huawei.com
Will(Shucheng) Liu
Huawei Technologies
P.R. China
Email: liushucheng@huawei.com
Pedro Martinez-Julia
NICT
Japan
Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
Jeferson Campos Nobre
University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos
Porto Alegre
Brazil
Email: jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br
Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
Madrid 28006
Spain
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Li, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 29]
