Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment
draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment
ANIMA S. Jiang, Ed.
Internet-Draft BUPT
Intended status: Standards Track J. Dang
Expires: 27 March 2024 Huawei
Z. Du
China Mobile
24 September 2023
A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Management Mechanism for Resource-
based Network Services
draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-05
Abstract
This document specifies an autonomic mechanism for resource-based
network services deployment and management, using the GeneRic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) to dynamically exchange the
information among the autonomic nodes. It supports the coordination
and consistently operations within an autonomic network domain. This
mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of network
resources, although this document only defines the process of quality
transmission service deployment and management. It can be easily
extended to support network services deployment and management that
is based on other types ofnetwork resources.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 March 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based Network
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers . . . . . . 6
4.2. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Negotiate Resource with Service Responser . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Change Reserved Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Releasing Resources during Service Ending . . . . . . . . 8
5. Autonomic Resource Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service
Auto-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Quality Transmision Service Scenario & Service Type . . . 10
6.2. Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service
Responser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Coodination among Multiple Service Responsers . . . . . . 12
6.4. Service Ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Service type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Resource Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Traditionally, IP networks are based on the best-efforts model. The
IP layer does not reserve resources for upper-layer applications.
However, more and more emerging applications that require quality
services, such as video, VR, AR, and so on. They need supports from
steady network resources, such as bandwidth, queue, memory, priority,
computational resources, etc. On another side, from network side,
more and more generic services, such as quality transmission
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
services, in-network data cache services and computing services,
etc., are starting to be deployed so that networks can serve these
resource-consumption applications well. These network services are
strongly based on the availibility and steadibility of network
resources.
To enable these resource-based applications and services, IETF have
developed many resource reservation mechanisms, such as RSVP
[RFC2205] that is mainly to reserve bandwidth only and path-oriented,
etc. However, most of them are mainly for reservation during the
deployment only and are rigid for dynamic adjustment. Furthermore,
most of them are dedicated for a certain type of network resources.
This document introduces an enhanced and extensible mechanism that
supports dynamically dispatching of network resources, using the
GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) defined in [RFC8990] to
dynamically exchange the information among the autonomic nodes. Its
dynamic adjust ability is mainly enabled by the negotiation ability
defined by [RFC8990].
This mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of network
resources. It can be easily extended to support network services
deployment and management that is based on other network resources.
It can be used, but no limited, in below network services scenarios:
* Quality transmission services. The quality could means quaranteed
bandwidth, or jitter, etc. In order guarantee the quality of
transmission services, the network should reserve transmission
resource, particularly bandwidth or queues, on a selected path
from the ingress to the egress node. The dynamic resource
dispatching mechanism should ensure the consistent of reserved
resources on all the nodes in this path, particularly, when
dynamic changes are operated on this path.
* Difference transmission services. The netwowrk may provide
different transmission services by putting the user packets into
different processes that have different resources, such as
bandwidth, queue length, piority, etc. The results would be
different user experience in delay and jitter, or even packet lose
rate.
* In network cache/storage services.The network may provide cache or
storage service by memory in the network devices or attached
devices. The idle memory space is the resource that need to be
request and managed. The location or distance of the memory is
also relevant to user experience.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
* Computing services. More and more spare computational resources
are from network providers. They may be idle computational cycles
on the network devices or deployed computational servers. The
occuption of these computational resources are time-sensitive.
Also, the location or distance of the computational resource is
relevant to user experience.
* Information services. In some scenarios, network may be the best
information provider. It may be the information are from or
generated by network itself. Or the network has the best location
to provide the infromation.
The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994] and the Bootstrapping
Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995] provide the secure
precondition for this mechanism.
This document defines an Autonomic Resource Management Objective in
Section 5. Three new corresponding registries are defined in
Section 8. This document defines the process of quality transmission
service deployment and management in Section 6.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology & Abbreviations
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
RM ASA: the Resource Manager ASA on an autonomic nodes. It manages
the local resources on the node, such as bandwidth, queue, memory,
priority, computational resources, etc. The RM ASA communicate with
other counterpart RM ASAs in order to dynamically dispatch network
resources within the autonomic network domain. This document assumes
all autonomic nodes have a RM ASA.
Service Initiator: the autonomic node that initiates and manages a
network service. It requests and dynamically adjusts the resources
of this network service through its RM ASA. Normally, a network
service SHALL have one service initiator within an autonomic network
domain. However, multiple Service Initiators model MAY also
operational if there were good synchronous or coordinate mechanisms
among them.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
Service Responser: the autonomic node that responses to the requests
from the Service Initiator. It receives the requests through its RM
ASA, checks or operates on its local resources, and responds the
results to the Service Initiator. Typically, a network service MAY
involve multiple Service Responser. The consistency among them are
the responsibility of the Service Initiator.
4. A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based Network
Services
This section describes the generic procedures of autonomic deployment
and management of the resource-based network services, as Figure1
shows. The detailed implementation or internal algorithms of the
ResourceManager ASAs are out of scope of this document. This section
does not cover the specific details that depend on certain network
services or certain type of network resources. The prepositive
operation that indicates the Service Initiator to start the service
deployment are out of scope. The information or reasons that trigger
the dynamic service changes are also out of scope.
| Node Discovery |
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->|
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| RM ASA | | RM ASA |
|Service Initiator| |Service Responser|
+-----------------+ ASA Discovery +-----------------+
|----------------------------------->|
| Authentication and Authorization |
|----------------------------------->|
| M_RESPONSE |
|<-----------------------------------|
| |
| Multiple rounds Negotiation |
|<---------------------------------->|
| on Resource Availability |
| |
| reserve the local resource
| |
... ...
| Coordination with other RM ASAs |
|<---------------------------------->|
... ...
| Service Ending |
|<---------------------------------->|
| release resources
Figure-1: generic procedures of autonomic deployment and management
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
4.1. Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers
The Service Initiator MAY first discover the relevant newwork nodes
according to the service setup in order to reduce the node range of
sending GRASP Discovery message . It may be all the nodes on a giving
path or nodes that have idle resource avaible for giving service
condition, etc. The node discover methods can be pre-configed,
outband discover, path detection, etc.
The Service Initiator SHOULD send out a GRASP Discovery message that
contains a ResourceManager Objective option defined in Section 5, in
which the network service is described. The Discovery message SHOULD
send to the reduced range nodes, by abovementioned mechanism, or all
nodes within the AN domain.
A RM ASA that receives the Discovery message with the ResourceManager
Objective option SHOULD check its satification against the service
description. If meet, the node is a proper Service Responser. It
SHOULD respond a GRASP Response message back to the Service
Initiator.
Defined in the section 2.5.5.1 of [RFC8990], the Discovery message
MAY combine with the below negotiation process, if the rapid
negotiation function has been enabled network wide. If the rapid
negotiation function has been disabled, the process would fall back
to the normal discovery-only process.
4.2. Authentication and Authorization
In principle, any operations on resources MUST be authoried. The
Service Responser SHOULD check the authentication of the Service
Initiator and the authorization information for the operation it
requests. This document assumes all autonomic nodes within the AN
domain have been authenticated and their requested operations are
authorized, giving the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994] and
the Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995]
has provided the secure environment for this mechanism.
4.3. Negotiate Resource with Service Responser
After the discovery step, the RM ASA on the Service Initiator sends a
GRASP Request message with a ResourceManager Objective option, in
which the value of the requested resource is indicated.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
When the RM ASA on a Service Responser receives a subsequent Request
message, it SHOULD conduct a GRASP negotiation sequence, using
Negotiate, Confirm Waiting, and Negotiation End messages as
appropriate. The Negotiate messages carry a ResourceManager
Objective option, which will indicate the resource type and value
offered to the requesting RM ASA.
During the negotiation, the RM ASA on the Service Responser will
decide at each step how much resource can be offered. That decision,
and the decision to end the negotiation, are implementation choices.
A resource shortage on the Service Responser may cause it to indicate
the existing available value within a ResourceManager Objective
option back to the Service Initiator. The Service Initiator might
decide whether to accept the request of the resource. If not, the RM
ASA on the Service Initiator MAY terminate the negotiation via
Negotiation End messages.
Upon completion of the negotiation, the Service Responser reserves
its local resources. The Service Initiator may use the negotiated
resource after receiving synchronization message without further
messages.
Normally, a network service SHALL have one service initiator within
an autonomic network domain. It is the Service Initiator's
responsibility to manage the service and coordinate among multiple
Service Responsers to ensure the consistent of reserved resources.
4.4. Change Reserved Resources
After the process of automatic resource management mechanism, RM ASAs
are allowed to change and negotiate the resource requirements. In
the lifetime of network services, there may be many reasons that the
service has to be changed upon with its reserved resources.
ResourceManager ASA needs to be able to handle resource changes in a
timely manner to meet service requirements.
During the renegotiation process, RM ASA on the Service Initiator
resends the service's resource requirements by using ResourceManager
GRASP Objective. RM ASA on the Service Responser receives the
resource negotiation message and makes the determination. If the
resource requirements are lower than those allocated or/and less
lifetime than previous, the Service Responser SHOULD directly confirm
the information and release the excess resources. If more resources
or lifetime are required, RM ASA on the Service Responser SHOULD
treat it as a brand-new request and make decision or further
negotiation. The bottom line is the Service Responser MUST allow the
Service Initiator fall back to previous allocated resource, both on
volume and lifetime.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
RM ASAs on the Service Responsers MUST NOT change existing resource
allocation until the new negotiation on resource changes is complete.
4.5. Releasing Resources during Service Ending
After the service is completed or expired, the reserved network
resources MUST be released so that network resources can be used more
efficiently. If the service lifetime expires, the Service Responser
MUST release its local resources and MAY send a Synchronization
message to the Service Initiator to notify the state change of its
local resources. If the Service Initiator wants to end the service
before the service lifetime expires, the Service Initiator MUST send
a negotiation message to the Service Responsers to request the
network resource to be changed to zero. Upon completion of the
negotiation, the Service Responser releases the resources occupied by
the service.
5. Autonomic Resource Management Objectives
This section defines the GRASP technical objective options that are
used to support autonomic resource management. ResourceManager GRASP
Objective allows multiple types of resources to be requested
simultaneously.
The ResourceManager Objective option is a GRASP Objective option
conforming to the GRASP specification [RFC8990]. Its name is
"ResourceManager", and it carries the following data items as its
value: the resource value. Since GRASP is based on CBOR (Concise
Binary Object Representation) [RFC8949], the format of the
ResourceManager Objective option is described in the Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] as follows:
objective = ["ResourceManager", objective-flags, loop-count,
?objective-value]
objective-name = "ResourceManager"
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag ; as in the GRASP
specification
loop-count = 0..255 ; as in the GRASP specification
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
The 'objective-value' field expresses the actual value of a
negotiation or synchronization objective. So a new objective-value
named autonomic-network-service-value is defined for Network Service
Auto-deployment as follows. The autonomic node can know that it is
serving Network Service Auto-deployment according to the objective-
value after receiving the GRASP message. The 'objective value'
contains two parts, one represents the information of the service
itself, and the other represents the requirements of resources.
objective-value = autonomic-network-service-value; An autonomic-
network-service-value is defined as Figure-2.
autonomic-network-service-value =
[
[
service-type,
service-id,
service-lifetime,
service-tag
],[
*resource-requirement-pair
]
]
Figure-2: Format of autonomic-network-service-value-value
service-type = 0..7
service-id = uint
service-lifetime = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
service-tag = [ *service-tag-info]
The combination service-type and the service-id MUST uniquely
represent a network service within the network. The uniqueness of
the combination service-type and the service-id SHOULD be guaranteed
by an allocation mechanism that is out of scope of this document.
The allocation of resources MUST specify the lifetime. The service-
lifetime represents the usage time of the resources required by the
service.
The service-tag contains other information that describes the
service. This information is not necessary, but will affect the
policy for RM ASA resource reservation.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
The resource-requirement-pair describes the resource requirements and
it is defined as Figure-3. Resource requirements of different types
can be described in an objective option. The ResourceManager
objective option supports multi-faceted resource requirements and
negotiation. These resource requirements are all in pairs, described
by resource type and resource value.
resource-requirement-pair =
[
resource-type,
resource-value
]
Figure-3: Format of resource-requirement-pair
resource-type = 0..7
resource-value = uint
6. Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service Auto-deployment
6.1. Quality Transmision Service Scenario & Service Type
The quality transmission service scenario is the most important
resource negotiation scenario. In this scenario, RM ASAs negotiate
the resource that will affect the transmission quality. The basic
resource is bandwidth and other types of resources such as queue can
be required at the same time.
The autonomic deployment and management of the quality transmission
service includes the Service Initiator and the Service Resopnsers all
have RM ASA. The Service Initiator is the resource demander, which
ensures the connection of services through negotiation resources with
RM ASAs in the domain network. Service Responsers are the nodes
which packets are forwarded in the transmission scenario and Service
Initiator asks resource from them. These nodes can be discovered
through RM ASA discovery precess or path discovery methods.
Negotiation Resource
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Negotiation Resource |
| +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+--------+ Negotiation Resource +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| RM ASA |<-------------------->| RM ASA | | RM ASA | | RM ASA |
+--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| SI | -------------------->| SR Node |-->| SR Node |-->| SR Node |
+--------+ Transmit data +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
Figure-3 shows how RM ASAs negotiate resources and how Service
Initiator forwards packages. The RM ASA on the Service Initiator
negotiates resources with the RM ASAs on the Service Responsers one
by one.
Figure-3: An Transimision Service
6.2. Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service Responser
In the process of negotiation, Service Initiator negotiates resources
with Service Responsers and ensures resources enough. RM ASAs are
allowed to negotiate resources for multiple rounds. It often happens
that the network resources on one node cannot meet the resources
required by the service, but the service is willing to reduce its
resource requirements to ensure the successful deployment of the
service. The RM ASAs on the Service Responsers feedback the maximum
available resources using Resource Management Objectives in the
response message. The RM ASA on the Service Initiator changes the
resource requirements according to the specific requirements of the
received resources and services, to carry out the next round of
service negotiation.
+----------+ +---------+
| RM ASA | | RM ASA |
+----------+ +---------+
| SI | | SR Node |
+----------+ [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]] +---------+
|------------------------------------------->|
| [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]] |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]] |
|------------------------------------------->|
| Negotiation End (ACCEPT) |
|<-------------------------------------------|
Figure-4 shows an example of negotiation process. In the first
negotiation round, RM ASA on the Service Initiator wants to get
resource from RM ASA on the Service Responsers. In this example, the
service type is TransimisionService and service-id is 36732. The
service will last 3600 seconds and only ask for one kind of resource
10 Mbit/s bandwith. So, the autonomic-network-service-value is
[[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]].
Figure-4: Negotiation Process
When RM ASA on the Service Responser Node receives the message, if
the RM ASA thinks the network can offer this required resource, it
will response the ACCEPT. But if it does not meet the request, it
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
will give how much resource it can offer. In this example, the
Service Responser can offer 8 Mbit/s. The next step, RM ASA on the
Service Initiator needs to decide whether to change its resource
requirements according to the reply, and sends a next round
negotiation. Then, RM ASA on the Service Responser finds the new
resource requirement, it can meet. So, it will response ACCEPT.
This is an example how ASAs negotiate resources.
6.3. Coodination among Multiple Service Responsers
The Service Initiator decides a coordinated value of resource and
negotiates with multiple Service Responsers that need to reduce the
locked resource. The Service Responsers reserve resources for
service according to the negotiation results. If the operation is
successful, the Service Responser reply success message to the
Service Initiator. If it fails, reply failure message to the Service
Initiator. And the Service Initiator will restart negotiation step.
When the Service Initiator receives the success message from all the
Service Responsers, the service can start to transmit the message.
6.4. Service Ending
When the service is ended, it is the responsibility of Service
Initiator to release all reserved resources through the dialogue with
the RM ASA on the Service Responser. And if the service lifetime is
exceeded, the Service Initiator SHOULD also release reserved resource
although the Service Responsers may release the reserved resource by
themselves.
7. Security Considerations
It complies with GRASP security considerations. Relevant security
issues are discussed in [RFC8990]. The preferred security model is
that devices are trusted following the secure bootstrap procedure
[RFC8995] and that a secure Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994]
is in place.
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new GRASP Objective option names:
"ResourceManager" which need to be added to the "GRASP Objective
Names" registry defined by [RFC8990]. And this document defines a
new registry tables "service-type" and "resource-type" under the
"ResourceManager" GRASP Objective. The following subsections
describe the new parameters.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
8.1. Service type
IANA has set up the "service-type" registry, which contains 4-bit
value. The service-type defines the type of service which is used to
describe the type of resource requirements.
* 0 : TransimisionService
* 1 : ComputingService
8.2. Resource Type
IANA has set up the "resource-type" registry, which contains 4-bit
value.
* 0 : bandwidth
* 1 : queue
* 2 : memery
* 3 : priority
* 4 : cache
* 5 : computing
9. Acknowledgements
Valuable comments were received from Michael Richardson and Brian
Carpenter.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC8990] Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Liu, Ed., "GeneRic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", RFC 8990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8990, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8990>.
[RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An
Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
[RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
Authors' Addresses
Sheng Jiang (editor)
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
No. 10 Xitucheng Road
Beijing
Haidian District, 100083
China
Email: shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Manag September 2023
Joanna Dang
Huawei
No.156 Beiqing Road
Beijing
P.R. China, 100095
China
Email: dangjuanna@huawei.com
Zongpeng Du
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Street
Beijing
P.R. China, 100053
China
Email: duzongpeng@chinamobile.com
Jiang, et al. Expires 27 March 2024 [Page 15]
