IETF126 ANIMA WG Meeting Agenda and Notes

Master at: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-126-anima

IETF126 is a hybrid IETF meeting.

Please familiarize yourself with the new & changed procedures for
participating in-person or remote:

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/preparation/

ANIMA will have one 90 minute session, chaired by Sheng Jiang and
Toerless Eckert (both onsite), Tuesday, Session VI, "Park Suite 7",
16:30 - 18:00 Meeting Time (CEST, UTC+2)

Number of participants on meetecho: 24 In the room: 32

Agenda / Notes

Note takers: Toerless, Sheng, ... collaborative editing by WG members.
Note taking was enhanced by copying or reformulating AI generated
minutes from: https://ietfminutes.org/minutes/ietf126/anima.html (thanks
a lot, Eric!)

00 Chair slides

Presenter: Sheng Jiang (local), Toerless Eckert (local)
Time: 10 minutes

No changes since IETF125 (only revision push)
Draft: draft-ietf-anima-registrar-considerations-03 (was -01 at IETF125)

Draft: draft-ietf-anima-masa-considerations-02 (was -01 at IETF125)

No changes since IETF125
draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-07 (no change since
IETF125)

Moved to IESG since IETF125:
Draft: draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-32 (was -26 at IETF125):

Several core BRSKI documents are progressing through the RFC Editor
queue. In Jabber/chat, Steffen Fries and Mahesh Jethanandani discussed
how draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm (BRSKI-PRM) was pushed into the RFC
Editor queue now that its dependency, rfc8366bis, is in the IESG
Evaluation state

service-dpeloyment also parked

rfc8366bis IESG feedback being handled. If you have any details go to
michael.

draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13: presented by Toerless Eckert
inline: Fully incorporated feedback from Stuart Cheshire. Speciofic text
improvements on details where BRSKI discovery implementations will
likely need to be diffferent than pre-existing DNS-SD implementations:
resilient switchover of clients, proxy behavior. After that version
request for easrly reviews from several directorates. These arrived
shortly before IETF126 and will be incorporated afterwards.

Toerless mentioned using Claude to proofread the XML/Markdown of the
draft. Stuart Cheshire supported this strategy, noting that AI tools are
exceptionally valuable for proofreading spelling, grammar, and general
readability before submitting to the mailing list, allowing participants
to focus purely on technical content.

Chairs presented a proposal to recharter ANIMA to explicitly support
AI-powered network agents (AI-ASAs) and agentic network automation.
Sheng Jiang clarified that "network agents" refers strictly to agents
serving networking tasks (device configuration, management, operation)
rather than generic application-level AI.

Microphone question about Discovery in ANIMA vs. DAWN: Discovery in
ANIMA is for solely the purpose of network management and operations
agents communications (AI or non-AI agents)

WG draft slots

01 Constrained BRSKI

Draft: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-31 (was -30 at IETF125)
Draft: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-20 (was -18 at IETF124)
Presenter: Esko Dijk (local)
Time: 10 min

• Updates on Constrained Voucher:

  • Updated the join proxy discovery methods using a simplified,
    more compact CoAP Link Format discovery.
  • Added default DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3 cipher suite details to
    improve out-of-the-box interoperability.
  • Esko shared details on his Hackathon work using a simulated
    environment (running open-source components of Thread/6LoWPAN
    and Java-based web services) to validate the end-to-end
    bootstrap flow.
  • A detailed Shepherd review was received. Esko is planning to
    move general IoT post-onboarding device management
    considerations out of this document to make the draft strictly
    focused on onboarding.

• Updates on Constrained Join Proxy:

  • Aligned terminology with updated onboarding specs.
  • Provided stricter guidance on mode selection (stateless vs.
    stateful).
  • Refined the definition of the JPY protocol scheme and
    shortened the default multicast discovery message sizes in
    cooperation with the CoRE Working Group.

Slides also show recap of some hackathon work related to OpenThread +
cBRSKI.

SKIPPED: 02 BRSKI discovery (for time reasons now in chair slides)

Draft: draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery-13 (was -09 at IETF125)
Presenter: Toerless Eckert (local)
Time: 10 min

03 Constrained GRASP

Draft: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-grasp-03 (was -02 at IETF125)
Presenter: Longwei Zhu (remote)
Time: 10 min

• Key Updates in v03:
  • Simplified the base profile by deferring support for the
    standard GRASP M_WAIT message to future extensions. Since
    CoAP-based state management is complex over long periods, the
    base cGRASP profile expects nodes to rely on negotiated timeouts
    or terminate and restart sessions instead of waiting.
  • Redesigned the discovery relay mechanism. CoAP exchange states
    are now kept local to each relay hop (hub), while the cGRASP
    session state remains stable end-to-end.
  • Migrated the prototype implementation from TCP-based GRASP to
    Python/AIOCoAP (running over UDP). The prototype successfully
    validated multi-link relaying, unicast negotiation,
    synchronization, flooding, and loop-count handling.
  • Discuss Toerless/Sheng: The authors plan to open-source the
    prototype once licensing approvals are cleared in the
    university.

New Work proposals

04 The Use Case of Autonomic Traffic Management in the Artificial Intelligence Data Center

Draft: draft-jiang-autonomic-traffic-management-in-aidc
Presenter: Sheng Jiang (local)
Time: 10 min

• Associated Draft Context: Formerly independent, recently
  submitted with an ANIMA-oriented focus.

• Discussion:

  • Sheng described the unique traffic challenges in AI Data Centers
    (AIDC). Highly synchronized workloads generate extreme
    burstiness, network hotspots, and compute-idle intervals during
    collective communication phases (e.g., training/inference).
  • Proposed an autonomic traffic management framework that
    coordinates across multiple domains: applications, compute
    placement, packet networks, and optical paths.
  • Outlined two operational models: a fully distributed workflow
    utilizing ASAs negotiating via GRASP, and a hybrid orchestration
    model combining global visibility (centralized controllers) with
    low-latency local reaction (distributed ASAs).
  • Questions to the WG: Sheng asked if traffic management ASAs
    are within the scope of ANIMA, whether the hybrid orchestration
    framework is viable, and if the draft should define specific
    GRASP objectives (which would shift it to the Standards Track).
    Toerless Eckert suggested moving these questions to the mailing
    list due to scheduling constraints.

05 AI for Autonomic Networking and Agentic AI for Intent-Based Networking

Draft: draft-eckert-anima-ai4an
Draft: draft-cxxx-nmrg-ai4ibn
Presenter: Toerless Eckert (local), Alexander Clemm (remote)
Time: 10 min

• Discussion:

  • Discussed the gap between "self-driving networks" (which are
    typically just highly automated centralized NOCs running AI) and
    truly autonomic, distributed networks.

  • Explored how Agentic AI can safely operate within the ANI
    framework. Strategies include:

    1. Letting LLMs/agents execute autonomic control loops
       directly, relying on the robust security/isolation of the
       Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) to survive agent failures or
       misconfigurations.
    2. Restricting LLMs to safe parameter optimization (e.g.,
       traffic engineering).
    3. Using LLMs as development and deployment assistants to
       automatically synthesize and verify lightweight,
       deterministic ASAs.

  • Explained how rechartering would allow dynamic,
    lifecycle-managed ASAs to be safely downloaded and run in the
    network (or on provisioning PCs in POPs for legacy network
    environments).

06 Problem Statement and Gap Analysis for Autonomic Networking with AI- powered Autonomic Service Agent

Draft: draft-han-anima-gap-analysis-ai-asa
Presenter: Mengyao Han (local)
Time: 10 min

• Discussion:
  • The presentation identified gaps between traditional ASAs and
    AI-powered ASAs (AI-ASAs) operating over the ANI.
  • Gaps Identified:
    1. Data-Intensive Communication: AI-ASAs exchange large
       contexts (e.g., LLM prompts, reasoning traces, real-time
       streams). While GRASP is suitable for discovery and
       negotiation, bulk data transport might require handshaking
       over GRASP and shifting to TCP, QUIC, or HTTP.
    2. Dynamic/Unregistered Objectives: Unlike traditional static
       GRASP objectives, AI-ASAs generate dynamic objectives. A
       common semantic model combining machine-readable structures
       with natural language is needed to ensure interoperability
       between agents from different developers.
    3. Trust & Security: Mechanisms must be introduced to address
       AI-specific risks, such as model errors or hallucinations,
       before agents deploy configurations.

07 GRASP through routers: a Problem Statement

Draft: draft-soulard-anima-grasp-router-problem-statement-01
Presenter: Titouan Soulard (local)
Time: 10 minutes

• Discussion:
  • Titouan presented a scenario where GRASP is used to orchestrate
    a cloud environment across multiple administrative domains. In
    this setup, operators lack control over intermediate routers,
    meaning multicast GRASP discovery cannot cross subnets because
    the routers do not support GRASP.
  • Proposed a "relay node" objective. Relays in each subnet would
    discover each other (via pre-configuration) and tunnel multicast
    discovery messages over unicast across the non-GRASP routers.
  • In the chat, Esko Dijk asked if this model shifts GRASP from
    "zero-config" to "minimal-config". Titouan replied that while a
    one-relay-per-subnet setup requires minimal configuration
    (relays know each other but are discovered dynamically by
    clients), it is far simpler than an "omniscient" configuration
    where every node must know a remote relay.
  • Toerless Eckert suggested this work aligns well with proposed
    rechartering and a potential "ACP-free ANI" architecture.

08 Use Cases and Requirements for Network Admission of AI Agent Instances

Draft: draft-shang-agent-network-admission-00
Presenter: Chao Shang (local)
Time: 5 min

• Discussion:
  • Chao presented the security and operational problems that arise
    when multiple AI agents or processes share the same IP address
    on a device. Currently, the network cannot differentiate traffic
    between different agents or attribute traffic to specific agent
    instances.
  • Application-layer authorization occurs too late—after network
    access has already been exposed.
  • Chao proposed a "verify, bound, and enforce" model to couple
    cryptographic agent instance identity with network admission.
  • Additionally, because AI agents dynamically select tools and
    external targets based on their tasks, the network must enforce
    "scope-down" access control. This restricts an agent's network
    privileges to the intersection of its base credentials and the
    minimal requirements of its current, active task.

09 Campus Agent Identification and Scope-Down Access Control

Drafts: draft-shang-campus-agent-scope-down-01
Presenter(s): Chao Shang
Time: 5 min

Chair Wrap-off (5 min)

Decisions and Action Items

• Document Progress:

  • draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery will proceed toward Working
    Group Last Call (WGLC) once Toerless Eckert addresses the early
    reviews received from other areas.

• cBRSKI Drafts:

  • Esko Dijk to submit formal responses to the Shepherd review
    comments on draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher.
  • Esko Dijk to excise post-onboarding IoT device management
    considerations from draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher and
    potentially move them to other working groups (e.g., ACE or
    LAMPS).

Next Steps

• ANIMA Rechartering:

  • Chairs to refine the proposed charter text based on meeting
    feedback and present it to the Area Director (AD) and the
    Working Group.
  • Members with existing/recent drafts (such as DNS discovery over
    GRASP, ACP-free ANI, and AI-ASA use cases) are urged to champion
    their work on the mailing list to sync with the new charter
    scope.

• Mailing List Discussions:

  • Debate on draft-ietf-anima-constrained-grasp v04 updates
    (especially discovery transaction lifecycles and cGRASP profile
    scope).
  • Discussion on the architectural alignment and security
    properties of "GRASP through routers" (07 GRASP through routers: a Problem Statement).
  • Scoping of Sheng Jiang's AI Data Center traffic management draft
    and Chao Zhou's agent admission and scope-down access control
    problem statements.