Internet DRAFT - draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification
draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification
Network Working Group C. Li
Internet Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Informational O. Havel
Expires: October 2020 W. Liu
A. Olariu
Huawei Technologies
P. Martinez-Julia
NICT
J. Nobre
UFRGS
D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
April 20, 2020
Intent Classification
draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-03
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 October 16, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Liu, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Acronyms .................................................... 5
3. Abstract intent requirements ................................. 5
3.1. What is Intent?......................................... 6
3.2. Intent Solutions & Intent Users ......................... 6
3.3. Current Problems & Requirements ......................... 7
3.4. Intent Types that need to be supported .................. 9
4. Functional Characteristics and Behavior ..................... 11
4.1. Abstracting Intent Operation ........................... 11
4.2. Intent User Types ...................................... 11
4.3. Intent Scope .......................................... 12
4.4. Intent Network Scope ................................... 13
4.5. Intent Abstraction ..................................... 13
4.6. Intent Lifecycle ....................................... 13
4.7. Hierarchy ............................................. 14
5. Intent Classification ....................................... 14
5.1. Intent Classification Methodology ...................... 15
5.2. Intent Taxonomy........................................ 17
5.3. Intent Classification for Carrier Solution ............. 19
5.3.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 19
5.3.2. Intent Categories ................................. 22
5.4. Intent Classification for Data Center Solutions ......... 25
5.4.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 25
5.4.2. Intent Categories ................................. 29
5.5. Intent Classification for Enterprise Solution .......... 31
5.5.1. Intent Users and Intent Types ..................... 31
5.5.2. Intent Categories ................................. 34
6. Involvement of intent in the application of AI to Network Manage
ment .......................................................... 36
7. Security Considerations ..................................... 37
8. IANA Considerations ........................................ 37
9. Contributors ............................................... 37
10. Acknowledgments ........................................... 38
11. References ................................................ 38
11.1. Normative References .................................. 38
11.2. Informative References ................................ 38
1. Introduction
The vision of intent-driven networks has attracted a lot of
attention, as it promises to simplify the management of networks by
human operators by simply specifying what should happen on the
network, without giving any instructions on how to do it. This
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
promise led many telecom companies to begin adopting this new
paradigm, and many SDOs to propose various intent variants.
All SDOs, such as IETF [ANIMA], ONF [ONF], ONOS [ONOS], have
proposed intents as a declarative interface for defining a set of
network operations to execute.
As such, IETF [ANIMA] defines intent as a declarative policy and
focuses on providing a more complete definition of it, a tentative
format, and a life-cycle. Within ONF [ONOS] intent is represented as
a list of CLI commands that allows users to pass low-level details
on the network, such as flows, or host addresses. ONF through its
Boulder and Aspen projects focuses on NBI semantics and intent
models.
As it can be observed, each of these SDOs came up with their own way
of specifying an intent, and with their own understanding of what an
Intent is in terms of the level of abstraction, intended users or
scenarios.
However, all intent approaches proposed by SDOs share the same
following features:
o It must be declarative in nature, meaning that a user specifies
the goal on the network without specifying how to achieve that
goal
o It must be vendor agnostic, in the sense that it abstracts the
network capabilities, or the network infrastructure from the
user, and it can be ported across different platforms
o It must provide an easy-to-use interface, which simplifies the
users' interaction with the intent system through the usage of
familiar terminology or concepts.
o It should be able to detect and resolve intent conflicts.
Currently, work is underway on unifying a common understanding of
intent concepts and terminology. [CLEMM] is currently leading these
efforts by defining intent as higher-level declarative policy that
operates at the level of network and services it provides, and by
capturing the differences between intent, policy and service.
However, even with proposed intent concepts and terminology, and
agreement on common intent characteristics, an intent may still be
viewed in different ways by different stakeholders for different use
cases and solutions.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
Thus, the goal of this document is to bring clarity to what an
intent represents for different stakeholders, by means of
classification on various dimensions, such as solutions, users and
intent types. This classification would ensure a common
understanding across all participants and it can be used to identify
the scope and priorities of individual projects, PoCs, research or
open-source projects.
This is achieved by proposing initial classification tables and the
methodology used for generating them. This methodology can be used
to update the tables by adding or removing different solutions,
users or intent types in order to cater for future scenarios,
applications or domains.
This draft together with [CLEMM] aims to become the foundation for
future intent-related topic discussions where all participants have
the same common understanding.
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].
2. Acronyms
CFS: Customer Facing Service
CLI: Command Line Interface
DC: Data Center
ECA: Event-Condition-Action
RFS: Resource Facing Service
SDO: Standards Development Organization
SUPA: Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
VPN: Virtual Private Network
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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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.
Concerning this, [CLEMM] draft brings clarification with relation to
what an intent is and how it differentiates from policies and
services.
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 /
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:
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 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%.
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:
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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?
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
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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
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
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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
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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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. Abstracting Intent Operation
The modelling of Intents can be abstracted using the following three-
tuple:
{Context, Capabilities, Constraints}
o Context grounds the intent, and determines if it is relevant or
not for the current situation. Thus, context selects intents
based on applicability.
o Capabilities describe the functionality that the intent can
perform. Capabilities take different forms, depending on the
expressivity of the intent as well as the programming paradigm(s)
used.
o Constraints define any restrictions on the capabilities to be
used for that particular context
Metadata can be attached via strategy templates to each of the
elements of the three-tuple, and may be used to describe how the
intent should be used and how it operates, as well as prescribe any
operational dependencies that must be taken into account.
4.2. Intent User Types
Intent user types, or intent actors as they are known in the area of
declarative policy, represent the users that define and issue the
intent request. Depending on the Intent Solutions, there are
specific intent actors. Examples of intent actors are customers,
network operators, service operators, enterprise, cloud, and
underlay network administrators, or application developers.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
o Customers and end-users do not necessarily know the functional
and operational details of the network that they are using.
Furthermore, they 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 behaviour according to
their business needs. They do not have to worry about how the
intents are deployed onto the underlying network, and especially,
whether the intents 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 operators, 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.
4.3. Intent Scope
Intent are used to manage the behaviour of the networks they are
applied to and all intents are applied within a specific scope, such
as:
o Connectivity scope, if the intent creates or modifies a
connection.
o Security scope, if the intent specifies the security
characteristics of the network or users.
o Application scope, when the intent specifies the applications to
be affected by the intent request
o QoS Scope, when the intent specifies the QoS characteristics of
the network
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
4.4. Intent Network Scope
Regardless on the intent user type, their intent request is
affecting the network, or network components, which are representing
the intent targets.
Thus, intent network scope, or policy target as known in the area of
declarative policy, can represent VNFs or PNFs, Physical Network
Elements, Campus networks, SD-WAN networks, radio access networks,
cloud edge, cloud core, branch, etc.
4.5. Intent Abstraction
Intent can be classified by whether it is necessary to feedback
technical network information or non-technical information to the
intended proponent after the intent is executed. As well, intent
abstraction covers the level of technical details in the intent
itself.
o For ordinary users, they do not care how the intent is executed,
or the details of the network. As a result, they do not 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. In this scenario, we
refer to an abstraction without technical feedback.
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. In
this case, we refer to an abstraction with technical feedback
4.6. Intent Lifecycle
Intents can be classified into transient and 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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
4.7. 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
5. Intent Classification
This chapter proposes an intent classification approach that may
help to classify mainstream intent related demos / tools.
The three classifications in this draft have been proposed from
scratch, following the methodology presented, through three
iterations: one for carrier Intent Solution, one for DC Intent
Solution, and one for enterprise Intent Solution. For each Intent
solution, we identified the specific Intent Users and Intent Types.
Then, we further identified the Intent Scope, Network Scope,
Abstractions, and Lifecycle requirements.
These classifications and the generated tables can be easily
extended. For example, for the DC Intent Solution, a new category is
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
identified, i.e. Resource Scope, and the classification table has
been extended accordingly.
In the future, as new scenarios, applications, and domain are
emerging, new classifications and taxonomies can be identified,
following the proposed methodology.
The output of the intent classification is the intent taxonomy
introduced in the next sections.
Thus, this section first introduces the proposed intent
classification methodology, followed by consolidated intent taxonomy
for three intent solutions, and then by concrete examples of intent
classifications for three different intent solutions (e.g. Carrier
Network, Data Center, and Enterprise) that were derived using the
proposed methodology and then can be filled in for PoCs, demos,
research projects or future drafts.
5.1. Intent Classification Methodology
This section describes the methodology used to derive the initial
classification proposed in the draft. The proposed methodology can
be used to create new intent classifications from scratch, by
analysing the solution knowledge. As well, the methodology can be
used to update existing classification tables by adding or removing
different solutions, users or intent types in order to cater for
future scenarios, applications or domains.
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 October 16, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+------------------------------------------+
|Solution Knowledge (requirements, |
|use cases, technologies, network, actors, |
|intent requirements) |
+----------------+-------------------------+
|
| Input
v
+--------+--------+
|Identify Intent |
|Solution +------------+
| | |
+---------^-+-----+ |
R1 | | U1 |
| | |
+-------------+ U8 | | R2 +--v----------------+
|Identify New +-----------+ | | +-----------> Identify |
|Categories | R8 | | | | U2 | Intent |
| <---------- | | | | +---------+ User Types |
+--------+----+ | | | | | | +-------------------+
^ | | | | | |
| +-+-v-+-v---+-v+
+--------+----+ U7 | | R3 +-------------------+
|Identify +------->Intent +--------> Identify |
|Lifecycle | R7 |Classification| U3 | Type |
|Requirements <-------+ <--------+ of Intent |
+--------+----+ +-^--^-+--^-+--+ +-------------------+
^ || | | | |
| || | | | |
+--------+----+ || | | | | R4 +-------------------+
|Identify | U6 || | | | +-----------> Identify |
|Abstractions +----------| | | | U4 | Intent |
| <----------+ | | +-------------+ Scope |
+-------+-----+ R6 | | +-------+-----------+
^ | | |
| U5 | |R5 |
| +-------+-v-------+ |
| |Identify Network | |
+----------+Scope <----------------+
+-----------------+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
In the above methodology, the arrows mean the following:
o Input represents the Solution Knowledge comprising of knowledge
about solution requirements, targeted use cases, available
technologies and networks, actors, intent requirements.
o R1-U1: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
intent solution
o R2-U2: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
intent user type
o R3-U3: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
intent types
o R4-U4: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
intent scopes
o R5-U5: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
network scopes
o R6-U6: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
abstractions
o R7-U7: Review existing classification and use/add/remove the
lifecycle requirements
o R8-U8: Review existing classification and use/add the newly
identified categories.
5.2. Intent Taxonomy
The following taxonomy describes the various intent solutions,
intent user types, intent types, intent scopes, network scopes,
abstractions and lifecycle and represents the output of the intent
classification tables for each of the solutions addressed (i.e.
Carrier Solution, Data Center, and Enterprise).
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+--------------------------------+
|Carrier Enterprise |
+-->|Data Center |
| +--------------------------------+
| +--------------------------------+
| |Customer |
+----------+ | |Network or Service Operator |
+>+Solutions +--+ |Application Developer |
| +----------+ +->|Enterprise Administrator |
| | |Cloud Administrator |
| +----------+ | |Underlay Network Administrator |
+>+Intent +---+ +--------------------------------+
| |User | +--------------------------------+
| |Types | |Customer Service Intent |
| +----------+ |Strategy Intent |
| +----------+ |Network Service Intent |
+>+Intent +----->|Underlay Network Service Intent |
+------+ | |Type | |Network Intent |
|Intent+-+ +----------+ |Underlay Network Intent |
+------+ | |Operational Task Intent |
| +----------+ |Cloud Management Intent |
+>+Intent +---+ |Cloud Resource Management Intent|
| |Scope | | +--------------------------------+
| +----------+ | +--------------------------------+
| +->|Connectivity Application |
| +----------+ |Security QoS |
+>+Network +---+ +--------------------------------+
| |Scope | | +--------------------------------+
| +----------+ | |Radio Access Branch |
| +->|Transport Access SD-WAN |
| +----------+ |Transport Aggr. VNF PNF |
+>+Abstrac +----+ |Transport Core Phisical |
| |tion | | |Cloud Edge Logical |
| +----------+ | |Cloud Core Campus |
| +----------+ | +--------------------------------+
+>+Life | | +--------------------------------+
|cycle +--+ +>|Technical Non-Technical |
+----------+ | +--------------------------------+
| +--------------------------------+
+-->|Persistent Transient |
+--------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
5.3. Intent Classification for Carrier Solution
5.3.1. 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 and |
| Subscriber |Service |Value Added Service |
| |Intent |Example: Always maintain high quality |
| | |of service and high bandwidth for gold|
| | |level users. |
| +----------------------------------------------------+
| |Strategy |Customer designs models and policy |
| |Intent |intents to be used by Customer Service|
| | |Intents. |
| | |Example: Request reliable service |
| | |during peak traffic periods for apps |
| | |of type video. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Network |Network |Service provided by Network Service |
|Operator |Service |Operator to the Customer |
| |Intent |(e.g. the Service Operator) |
| | |Example: Request network service with |
| | |delay guarantee for access customer A.|
+-------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Customer/ |Customer |Customer Self-Service with SLA and |
| Subscriber |Service |Value Added Service |
| |Intent |Example: Always maintain high quality |
| | |of service and high bandwidth for gold |
| | |level users. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| |Strategy |Customer designs models and policy |
| |Intent |intents to be used by Customer Service |
| | |Intents. |
| | |Example: Request reliable service |
| | |during peak traffic periods for |
| | |applications of type video. |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+
|Network |Network |Service provided by the Network Service|
|Operator |Service |Operator to the Customer (e.g. the |
| |Intent |Service Operator) |
| | |Example: Request network service with |
| | |delay guarantee for access customer A. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| |Network |Network Operator requests network-wide |
| |Intent |(service 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.|
| | |Example: Request high priority queueing|
| | |for traffic of class A. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| |Operational |Network Operator requests execution of |
| |Task |any automated task other than Network |
| |Intent |Service Intent and Network Intent |
| | |(e.g. Network Migration, Server |
| | |Replacements, Device Replacements, |
| | |Network Software Upgrades. |
| | |Example: Request migration of all |
| | |services in Network N to backup path P.|
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| |Strategy |Network Operator designs models, policy|
| |Intent |intents and workflows to be used by |
| | |Network Service Intents, Network |
| | |Intents and Operational Task Intents. |
| | |Workflows can automate any tasks that |
| | |Network Operator often performed in |
| | |addition to Network Service Intents and|
| | |Network Intents |
| | |Example: Ensure the load on any link in|
| | |the network is not higher than 50%. |
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+
| Service | Customer | Service Operator's Customer Orders, |
| Operator | Service | Customer Service / SLA |
| | Intent | Example: Provide service S with |
| | | guaranteed bandwidth for customer A. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Service Operator's Network Orders / |
| | Service | Network SLA |
| | | Example: Provide network guarantees in|
| | Intent | terms of security, low latency and |
| | | high bandwidth |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Service Operator requests execution of|
| | Task | the any automated task other than |
| | Intent | Customer Service Intent and Network |
| | | Service Intent |
| | | Example: Update service operator |
| | | portal platforms and their software |
| | | regularly. Move services from Network |
| | | Operator 1 to Network Operator 2. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Service Operator designs models, |
| | Intent | policy intents and workflows to be |
| | | used by Customer Service Intents, |
| | | Network Service Intents and |
| | | Operational Task Intents. Workflows |
| | | can automate any tasks that Service |
| | | Operator often performed in addition |
| | | to Network Service Intents and Network|
| | | Intents . |
| | | Example: Request network service |
| | | guarantee to avoid network congestion |
| | | during special periods |
| | | such as Black Friday, and Christmas. |
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+
|Application | Customer | Customer Service Intent API provided |
| Developer | Service | to the Application Developers |
| | Intent | Example: API to request network to |
| | | watch HD video 4K/8K. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | Network | Network Service Intent API provided to|
| | Service | the Application Developers |
| | Intent | Example: API to request network and |
| | | monitoring an traffic grooming |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Intent API provided to the |
| | Intent | Application Developers |
| | | Example: API to request network |
| | | resources configuration. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided |
| | Task | to the Application Developers. This is|
| | Intent | for the trusted internal Operator / |
| | | Service Providers / Customer DevOps |
| | | Example: API to request server |
| | | migrations. |
| +-----------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer designs models, |
| | Intent | policy and workflows to be used by |
| | | Customer Service Intents, Network |
| | | Service Intents and Operational |
| | | Task Intents. This is for the trusted |
| | | internal Operator/Service Provider/ |
| | | Customer DevOps |
| | | Example: API to design network load |
| | | balancing strategies during peak times|
+-------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+
5.3.2. 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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+---------+---------+-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| Intent | Intent | Intent | NF | Network | ABS |L-C |
| User | Type | Scope |Scope| Scope | | |
| | +-----------+-----+-----------------+-----+-----+
| | |C1|C2|C3|C4|C1|C2|C1|C2|C3|C4|C5|C6|C1|C2|C1|C2|
+---------+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|Customer |Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|/ Sub- |Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| scriber |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|Network |Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Operator |Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Operatio-| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | nal Task| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|Service |Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Operator |Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Op Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
|App |Customer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Developer|Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Op Task | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
5.4. Intent Classification for Data Center Solutions
5.4.1. 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 |
| Tenants | Intent | Portal, Customers may have multiple |
| | | type of end users. |
| | | Example: Request GPU computing and |
| | | storage resources to meet 10k video |
| | | surveillance services. |
| | | |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | This includes models and policy |
| | Intent | intents designed by Customers/ |
| | | Tenants to be used by Customer and |
| | | End-User Intents. |
| | | Example: Request dynamic computing |
| | | and storage resources of the service|
| | | in special and daily times. |
| | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Cloud | Configuration of VMs, DB Servers, |
| Cloud | Management | App Servers, Connectivity, |
| | | Communication between VMs. |
| Administrator | Intent | Example: Request connectivity |
| | | between VMs A,B,and C in Network N1.|
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Cloud | Policy-driven self-configuration and|
| | Resource | and recovery / optimization |
| | Management | Example: Request automatic life |
| | Intent |-cycle management of VM cloud |
| | | resources. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Cloud Administrator requests |
| | Task Intent | execution of any automated task |
| | | other than Cloud Management |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | | Intents and Cloud Resource |
| | | Management Intents. |
| | | Example: Request upgrade operating |
| | | system to version X on all VMs |
| | | in Network N1. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Cloud Administrator designs models, |
| | Intent | policy intents and workflows to be |
| | | used by other intents. Automate any |
| | | tasks that Administrator often |
| | | performs, in addition to lifecycle |
| | | of Cloud Management Intents and |
| | | Cloud Management Resource Intents. |
| | | Example: In case of emergency, |
| | | automatically migrate all cloud |
| | | resources to DC2. |
+---------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Underlay | Underlay | Service created and provided by |
| Network | Network | the Underlay Network Administrator|
| Administrator | Service | Example: Request underlay service |
| | Intent | between DC1 and DC2 with |
| | | bandwidth B . |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Administrator |
| | Network | requests some DCN-wide underlay |
| | Intent | network configuration or network |
| | | resource configurations. |
| | | Example: Establish and allocate |
| | | DHCP address pool. |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Underlay Network Administrator |
| | Task Intent | requests execution of the any |
| | | automated task other than Underlay|
| | | Network Service and Resource |
| | | Intent. |
| | | Example: Request automatic rapid |
| | | detection of device failures and |
| | | pre-alarm correlation. |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Underlay Network Administrator |
| | Intent | designs models, policy intents & |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | | workflows to be used by other |
| | | intents. Automate any tasks that |
| | | Administrator often performs |
| | | Example: 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%. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Cloud | Cloud Management Intent API |
| | Management | provided to the Application |
| | Intent | Developers. |
| | | Example: API to request |
| | | configuration of VMs,or DB Servers|
| Application +-------------------------------------------------+
| Developer | Cloud | Cloud Resource Management Intent |
| | Resource | API provided to the Application |
| | Management | Developers. |
| | Intent | Example: API to request automatic |
| | | lifecycle management of cloud |
| | | resources. |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Service API |
| | Network | provided to the Application |
| | Service | Developers. |
| | Intent | Example: API to request real-time |
| | | monitoring of device condition. |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Underlay | Underlay Network Resource API |
| | Network | provided to the Application |
| | Intent | Developers. |
| | | Example: API to request dynamic |
| | | management of IPv4 address pool |
| | | resources. |
| | | |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API |
| | Task Intent | provided to the trusted |
| | | Application Developer (internal |
| | | DevOps). |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | | Example: API to request automatic |
| | | rapid detection of device failures|
| | | and pre-alarm correlation |
| | | |
| +-------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer designs |
| | Intent | models, policy intents and |
| | | building blocks to be used by |
| | | other intents. This is for the |
| | | trusted internal DCN DevOps. |
| | | Example: API to request load |
| | | balancing thresholds. |
+---------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
5.4.2. 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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+---------+-------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|Intent | Intent | Intent | DCN | DCN | ABS | L-C |
|User | Type | 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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Admin | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|Underlay | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Network | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Admin | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|App | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Developer| Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | Cloud | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Management | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Underlay | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Network | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Resource | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Operational | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Task Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | Strategy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Intent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+-------------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
5.5. Intent Classification for Enterprise Solution
5.5.1. Intent Users and Intent Types
The following table describes the Intent Users in Enterprise
Solutions and their Intent Types.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
+--------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| Intent User | Intent Type | Intent Type Description |
+--------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| End-User | End-User | Enterprise End User Self-Service or |
| | Intent | Applications, Enterprise may have |
| | | multiple types of End-Users. |
| | | Example: Request access to VPN |
| | | service. |
| | | Request video conference between |
| | | user A and B. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | This includes models and policy |
| | Intent | intents designed by End-Users to be |
| | | used by End-User Intents and their |
| | | Applications. |
| | | Example: Create a video conference |
| | | type for a weekly meeting. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Administrator | Network | Service provided by the |
| (internal or | Service | Administrator to the End-Users |
| MSP) | Intent | and their Applications. |
| | | Example: For any user of application|
| | | X, 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|
| | | Create management VPN connectivity |
| | | for type of service A. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Administrator requires network wide |
| | Intent | configuration (e.g. underlay, |
| | | campus) or resource configuration |
| | | (switches, routers, policies). |
| | | Example: Configure switches in |
| | | campus network 1 to prioritise |
| | | traffic of type A. |
| | | Configure Youtube as business |
| | | non-relevant. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Administrator requests execution of |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | Task Intent | any automated task other than |
| | | Network Service Intents and Network |
| | | Intents. |
| | | Example: Request network security |
| | | automated tasks such as Web |
| | | filtering and DDOS cloud protection.|
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Administrator designs models, policy|
| | Intent | intents and workflows to be used by |
| | | other intents. Automate any tasks |
| | | that Administrator often performs. |
| | | Example: In case of emergency, |
| | | automatically shift all traffic of |
| | | type A through network N. |
| | | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| Application | End-User | End-User Service / Application |
| Developer | Intent | Intent API provided to the |
| | | Application Developers. |
| | | Example: API for request to open a |
| | | VPN service. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network Service API Provided to |
| | Service | Application Developers. |
| | Intent | Example: API for request network |
| | | bandwidth and latency for |
| | | hosting video conference. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Network | Network API Provided to Application |
| | Intent | Developers. |
| | | Example: API for request of network |
| | | devices configuration. |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Operational | Operational Task Intent API provided|
| | Task Intent | to the trusted Application Developer|
| | | (internal DevOps). |
| | | Example: API for requesting |
| | | automatic monitoring and |
| | | interception for network security |
| +---------------------------------------------------+
| | Strategy | Application Developer designs |
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
| | Intent | models, policy intents and building |
| | | blocks to be used by other intents. |
| | | This is for the trusted internal |
| | | DevOps. |
| | | Example: API for strategy intent in |
| | | case of emergencies. |
| | | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+
5.5.2. 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 October 16, 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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 October 16, 2020 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
6. 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;
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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
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.
7. Security Considerations
This document does not have any Security Considerations.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Contributors
The following people all contributed to creating this document,
listed in alphabetical order:
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
Ying Chen, China Unicom
Richard Meade, Huawei
John Strassner, Huawei
Xueyuan Sun, China Telecom
Weiping Xu, Huawei
10. 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.
11. References
11.1. 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.
[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.
11.2. 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.
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
[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.
[CLEMM] Alexander Clemm and Laurent Ciavaglia and Lisandro
Zambenedetti Granville and Jeff Tantsura, Intent-Based
Networking - Concepts and Overview, 4 Nov, 2019
Authors' Addresses
Chen Li
China Telecom
No.118 Xizhimennei street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100035
P.R. China
Email: lichen6@chinatelecom.cn
Li, et al. Expires October 16, 2020 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Intent Classification April 2020
Olga Havel
Huawei Technologies
Email: olga.havel@huawei.com
Adriana Olariu
Huawei Technologies
Email: adriana.olariu@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 October 16, 2020 [Page 40]
