Minutes IETF108: nmrg
minutes-108-nmrg-00

NMRG 58th meeting = IETF 108, Online

RG Chairs:
* Laurent Ciavaglia
* Jéröme François

RG Secretaries
* Jéferson Campos Nobre
* Pedro Martinez-Julia

Useful links:
    * Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/nmrg
    * Meetecho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf108/nmrg/
    * Notes: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-nmrg
    * Audio recording: https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf108/
    * Video recording: https://www.youtube.com/user/ietf/playlists

Wednesday 2020/07/29 11:00 - 12:40
Room 2

1. 11:00 Introduction + RG information, Chairs, 5 min

2. 11:05 Concepts of Digital Twin Network, C. Zhou, 7 min. + 3 min. Q&A
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-nmrg-digitaltwin-network-concepts/
* Presented concepts of Digital Twin Network (DTN), benefits, challenges, next
steps (see slides for details) * Albert Cabellos: Is this technology for wired
networks or other scenarios? Which kind of technology will be needed to build
this system? * Cheng Zhou: It will include both wired and wireless networks, to
start with small networks in DC or telco core nets. Technology: data
collection, storage, virtualization, ML, interface standardization is important
to deal with different suppliers.

3. 11:15 Research Challenges in AI for NM document (discussion), J. Francois, 7
min. + 3 min. Q&A * Reported on the status of the shared document being
prepared, 7+ contributions, the core part is the challenge description, which
has been categorized. The document will be used to write an I-D, first
consolidated version at IETF 109. (see slides for details) * Cheng Zhou: Use
cases are in section 3, but you plan not to include them in the I-D? * Jerome
Francois: Yes, we only have a list of use cases.... [TBC]

4. 11:25 Transport Slice Intent, Luis M. Contreras, 7 min. + 3 min. Q&A
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-nmrg-transport-slice-intent/
* Presented the draft: leveraging IBN to request network slices. Updates on
draft. Link with IETF TEAS WG. Propose this an an NMRG intent use case. (see
slides for details). * Alex Clemm: Where do you see the slice controller and
where its interface? What kind of intent it provides? Will it be itself an
intent based system? * Luis Contreras: Yet to be defined, it will have APIs and
parameters, as an idea the IBN approach would be translated to the slice
template.

5. 11:35 Interconnection Intent, Luis M. Contreras, 7 min. + 3 min. Q&A
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-nmrg-interconnection-intents/
* Presented the draft: use of intent for interconnection. Find new models for
interconnecting different operators and express it in a simple way. Leverage
IBN to handle enriched interconnection requests, beyond pure IP traffic
interchange. Propose this an an NMRG intent use case. (see slides for details).
* Jerome Francois: One of the next steps of NMRG work on IBN is to find use
cases, so this is very important and useful. Anyone interested in IBN should
look at the drafts.

6. 11:45 Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture, Benoit
Claise, 7 min. + 3 min. Q&A
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ *
Presented the drafts: architecture and YANG models. Drafts were updated on
Monday after feedback from Hackathon. Interesting for research: assurance graph
(slide 7), which allows to visualize how symptoms affect services and where the
root cause can be found. (see slides for details). * Alex Clemm: This is a
model-based reasoning to infer the faults, it typically requires a complete
graph to get useful information, if it is not complete it is difficult to get
the exact status, how much this model can replace monitoring? * Benoit Claise:
Monitoring today considers the network as a black box. We offer a reversed
approach, we are able to tell where the problem is not looking at the specific
components. * Cheng Zhou: Is there any data? What is the accuracy to diagnose
failures? * Benoit Claise: Yes, there is data, we use also a real network. ...
[TBC]

7. 11:55 Report(s) on NMRG participation to IETF 108 Hackathon,  11:55 - 40 min.
* Intent-based, assurance, telemetry, K. Edline, 15min
    * Reported on the Hackathon. Developed an open-source SAIN agent. (see
    slides for details). * Jerome Francois: You and Benoit said that the
    Hackathon was helpful to revise the draft. How it was actually helpful? *
    Benoit Claise: we spent one day on the Hackathon, it was very efficient.
    Details reported on slide 9 of my presentation. * Andre Bondi: Have you
    though about how often the probing must be done? There is a cost in doing
    that and this affects the response time. This is something to be carefully
    considered. * Korian Edeline: Collection every 3 sec. * Benoit Claise: The
    probe frequency depends on the service we want to monitor and the use case
    we are considering. It must be configurable at the subservice level. We
    rely on model-based telemetry, not SNMP traps. * Diego Lopez: we are
    working on mechanism on data aggregation. This can be important in your
    system. * Benoit Claise: We do have data aggregation, it's key in our
    system [TBC]
* A Multi-Level Approach to IBN, W. Cerroni, 15min
    * reported on the hackathon session. PoC demonstration of multi-level IBN.
    Very fruitful discussion with participant, although we didn't have a
    hands-on/coding session. First attempt to adopt the intent classification
    methodology. (see slides for details). * Olga Havel: thanks for using the
    intent taxonomy and classification methodology. It's good to see that no
    new categories were needed. * Walter Cerroni: it was a first attempt, we
    need to think about it more, but for the time being we found everything in
    the current classification and nothing seemed to be missing. * Philip
    Eardley: Does your approach allow multiple levels of intent (i.e. beyond
    the 2 levels of your hackathon)? * Walter Cerroni: We considered the case
    of physical infrastructure providers offering slice intent to VNOs or
    service providers and, in turn, service intents to service customers,
    that's why we considered only 2 levels. However, multiple levels can also
    be used, depending on the levels of abtractions. For instance, a complex or
    multi-domain infrastructure could be segmented in multiple levels of
    intents, e.g. one level specific to a single domain or segment
    (decomposition), another for network-wide needs.

* I2NSF, P. Jeong, 10min
    * Reported on the Hackathon session. I2NSF architecture. Security policy
    translation important for IBN. (see slides for details). * Charles Eckel:
    Do you plan to make a contribution to OpenStack to make the I2NSF framework
    available to the community? * Paul Jeong: Members of our teams are working
    for OpenStack, we will look into that.

Time did not allow to discuss the following extra items. The chairs will
follow-up on the mailing list. * IBN use cases and next steps (discussion) *
Intent classification (draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification) * IBN
Concepts and definition (draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions) * RG infos