Subject: Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 15:38:23 +0000

Hi Bert,

I think we are in almost complete sync in what relates to the general model. The only point is that I would like to be sure that it is possible to decouple the functions at the disposal of a certain role from the application of RBAC when it comes to access a particular function on a particular object. That's why I was trying to distinguish into views (that define the objects and functions a user can see) and roles (that define the capability of invoking those functions)

This is an usual practice in object-oriented programming, where you have two orthogonal access control mechanisms: one  by means of the class hierarchy you expose (the "views") an another by means of the access to the particular objects that have been instantiated in that class hierarchy (the "roles")

Be goode,

On 23 Jun 2015, at 08:38 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Diego, not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but I think my conclusion is
that w.r.t. aspects of roles, we agree that

- The various roles will have different sets of functions at their disposal
- Access to those function is controlled via an RBAC system which takes these roles into account

I think we also agree (and did express so in our postings) that the roles should not be
hard-coded into the system, and that the we should be able to dynamically define them.

I still have concerns about the term "view". I think we agree that each role has its own
set of function at its disposal. The exact set of such function would also be better dynamic and
not be hard-coded.

Are we in sync now?

Bert

On 22/06/15 09:29, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA wrote:
Hi Bert,

Reviewing my pending e-mail I have noticed I did not reply to this. The discussion has been ongoing and may be I come a little late to this, but just let me note I was trying to highlight that when talking about roles we were talking about two different aspects (access control and functional) and that I did not think it was a good idea to predefine them in any case, but to make the language we used and its underlying formalism support those two aspects.

If the common use of the term role is essentially associated with access control I agree is wiser to restrict it to that environment. For the other aspect I'd prefer to use the term "view", but again if there is another term in widest use I'd be happy to endorse it. But, let me insist, let's define mechanisms for supporting them, and not go and predefine them.

Be goode,

On 16 Jun 2015, at 14:15 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Diego.

So I wonder why we try to define two TYPES of roles. What you call "views" below or what I call "sets of intent expressions"
are probably the same. They indeed consist of sets of objects and actions which can be used. But I do not call them roles.
At lest, that triggers something in my brain that gets me confused.

Why would we confuse anyone by using terms like "functional roles" and "access roles".

As I have stated a few times. I think:
- people or applications act in a certain role (end-user, network architect, operator, trouble shooter)
- they can use expressions of intent. Based on the role they assume/play, they can use a set
 of (dynamically defined, fine by me, actually best indeed) they have a set of objects that they can
 specify intention for/with.
- Based on their role they get access (are allowed to) use such objects in their intent expressions.
 The access control for that is (in my view) called or based on an RBAC system/mechanism.
 So if we have objects like "link", "node', "router", "security-mechanism"
 I would think that someone in the end-user role would not be allowed to express intent
 about routers or security mechanism, whereas an operator probably would
 So if a user or program in the end-user role, tries to express intent for a router,
 the access control system would deny that based on the role (so RBAC).
 If someone in an operator role tries to express intent for a router, then the access control
 system would allow that based on the role (again, RBAC).

I think we should use "roles" only for "functions" like end-user, network architect, operator,
trouble shooter... there may be a few more. Again we would allow to define them dynamically
so we can add roles if needed easily. I can see that in ICIM we define an abstract class of Role
from which we derive specific classes like EndUser, Operator, NetworkArchitect.
I can see that in ICIM we define a class User, which gets a reference to one or more
specific roles, which then identifies that user to be allowed to play in that role.

If you want to use the word "views" for "sets of intent expressions", then fine.
I would strongly suggest not to use "functional roles". As you can already see from our discussions
here, we have a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. How would people new to our ICIM
understand the differenes. Would they not get confused too quickly?

I am not sure "views" is the best term for it either .
"set of intent expressions" also is not the ideal term.
If we could agree on an easy to understand term for that concept, that would be great.

Some thoughts/ideas for that term/concept:
-  IntentElements
- IntentTargets
- IntentAttributes

So one would have an IntentElement that is composed of targets and attributes
I could think of roles having access/no-access to specific targets
I could think of roles having access/no-access to specific attributes of specific targets
And since an IntentElement is composed of targets and attributes, that is a set of
targets and attributes that allows a defined set if "intent-expressions" So one could
give access maybe at that level of IntentElement, which would mean the role is
allowed to express intent in terms of wanted attributes (states?) on the set of targets,
all defined in the IntentElement.

Just thinking aloud to see/hear if we are converting on a common way of thinking about this.

Bert

On 16/06/15 12:21, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA wrote:
Hi Bert,

I am trying to consistently refer to functional roles as "network views" (in the same way SQL defines views for databases), so we keep the term "role" for identifying the access control applicable to a certain user, very much in the RBAC approach you mention. Let me try to rephrase it again so we can find some common ground on this:

1) Views (functional roles) define how a certain user can express intent, by means of identifying the network objects and operations the user can interact with

2) Roles (access roles) define which of the view objects and actions a user can invoke by applying access control rules on those objects and actions.

Be goode,

On 16 Jun 2015, at 07:12 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Sorry, but I suspect I am getting confused again.

Roles are roles in my view. And based on your role, you get access to ceratin things
(types of intent expressions you can tell to the system).
The access control to the various "intent expressions" will be based on a role.
And so you have RBAC. Or am I still confused here?

Bert

On 16/06/15 04:40, zhangyali (D) wrote:

Hi, Diego,

Definitely agree with you. Ore-defining general roles is difficult and unreasonable because of the diversity of systems and variability of dividing perspective. However, pre-defining some typical roles that consist with most network system will be helpful for us to analyze intent common information model.

As you have explained the difference of functional roles and access roles, I think they are two dimensions of roles, that is, access roles defines the scope of functional roles. But I have a doubt is that access roles just define scope of network abstraction who would not express intent. In ICIM (Intent Common Information Model), user own one or more roles and express intent, so user is the combination of functional roles, do you agree that?

Best,

Yali

*发件人:*DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA [mailto:[email-masked]]
*发送时间:*2015年6月14日18:41
*收件人:*zhangyali (D)
*抄送:*Susan Hares; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>; Dave Hood; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*主题:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Yali,

Defining some typical roles and their pre-defined views (in terms of actions that are available to them) makes sense to me. What I'd like to avoid is to freeze that set of predefined roles as the only ones suitable to be used from the functional point of view.

Be goode,

On 11 Jun 2015, at 04:28 , zhangyali (D) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Diego,

Agree with you. We do not need to predefine roles in a system because of the diversity of systems and roles. And if a user could tie multiply roles, it needs a rule to restrict the combination.

But when we consider a common intent model, maybe we can try to define some typical roles in network system and analyze the real intent of each role. For example, Pedro has provided some typical roles, such as, end-user, service provider, network architecture, network operator, etc. Do you think this way make sense?

Best,

Yali

*发件人:*DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA [mailto:[email-masked]]
*发送时间:*2015年6月11日0:49
*收件人:*zhangyali (D)
*抄送:*Susan Hares; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>; Dave Hood; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*主题:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Yali,

Nothing to excuse about. We are discussing here to understand one another.

I don't think we should predefine the roles by any means, just provide support in the language to define the, What I refer to when talking about compositional semantics was about defining how the views (available objects or invariants as Pedro says) or permissions (operations allowed) for a user can be built by combining the different roles a user can have. We'd need to define precedence rules (or a similar mechanism) to solve conflicts and avoid inconsistencies, which may become a source of serious security breaches.

Be goode,

On 10 Jun 2015, at 04:17 , zhangyali (D) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Diego,

Sorry for mistake your idea, and thanks for giving me a clarification.  I do think these mapping of roles are important in designing intent modeling.

For you said that “we should a clear role compositional semantics”, do you have some consideration about what roles we should have or the principle of classification?

Best,

Yali

*发件人:*DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA [mailto:[email-masked]]
*发送时 间:*2015年6月10日5:33
*收件人:*zhangyali (D)
*抄送:*Susan Hares;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>; Dave Hood;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*主题:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Yali,

I'd not say there are two classifications of roles, but two mapping of roles onto the intended modeling language. One related to the abstraction available to each role, and the other in terms of a security model that identifies which operations a role can invoke.

And yes, roles define a different dimension than users. A role, for sure, can be assigned to several users. And a user can have several roles, though in that case we should a clear role compositional semantics.

Be goode,

On 9 Jun 2015, at 04:03 , zhangyali (D) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Diego,

Thanks for your consideration about the concept of role. From my understanding about your type of role (please point it out if my understanding is not right), you think there are two classification methods of roles overall. One method is distinguish roles depending on their operation scope, which focus on which roles are restricted to do some specific operations. Another method for distinguish roles by network abstraction model layer, and in any abstraction model, user could express specific intent.

In my opinion, these two methods are important to understand the meaning of roles. The constraint of intent content is related with user’s roles. For example, database in the whole system could not be deleted by non-administrators. So non-administrators’intent could not express the intent of deleting system. So users’role will constraint users’intent.

In one network abstraction view, users roles could express their intent which depend on this abstraction view. While in some cases, one user may contain several roles, so one user can express various view of intent. Do you have any comments about this?

Best,

Yali

*发件人:*DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA [mailto:[email-masked]]
*发送时间:*2015年6月7日1:41
*收件人:*Susan Hares
*抄送:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>; Dave Hood;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*主题:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Sue,

I tend to agree with your idea of roles, though I'd say that in the concept of role we are discussing here I see two aspects that could (should?) be addressed separately.

On the one hand, we have the role as a security concept, defining what a particular user is allowed to do or not do, and therefore RBAC would become the natural solution for the security model to be applied to intent expressions. The language should support mechanisms to define such roles and to associate these roles to users and to intent expressions by identifying the objects, results or conditions that can be invoked in a expression by a certain role.

On the other, we have role as modeling element: depending on the role they have, users would be able to see a different network model, and to employ different intent expressions. This has to do with the particular network abstraction being accessible to each role, and would require the modeling language to support the definition of "abstraction views" and associating them with roles.

I hope it is clear to all that in both cases the ability to make specific expressions for a certain role is limited, though limitations are enforced at different points in the processing of the expressions, and they imply different requirements on the modeling language and the platform(s) supporting it. And, as far as I can tell, supporting both would be highly desirable...

Be goode,

On 5 Jun 2015, at 19:41 , Susan Hares <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Fengkai:

The key point about roles is where do they fit within the network-SQL Diego talks about.  The basic concepts from draft-xia-ibnemo-icim-00 make sense to me as part of the SQL

Usersà(have) intentà(expressed) in context

Intent (is made of) ==  object (constraint in node, connection, flow ), results (constraint in expect/avoid), operation (constraint, in condition and action)

If Roles are a type of intent, then there must be a qualifier on our intent definition above).

If role are constraints that impact object, result, and operation, then we can model roles by simply indicating what constraint the role plays.  In Nemo, we create a model that provides a model for network objects (nodes, connection, and data flows/action.  If a role forms a grouping of constraints (or class), you can translate roles to a set of pre-defined properties that can be associated with a pre-defined type of objects (Node, link, and dataflow/action), or results (Expect/Avoid p2pconnect or mp2mpconnect), or operations (Flows of 1 Gbps).

What does this mean for the user?  The network SQL sets up libraries to define roles because it is simply constraints on the components of intent.

What do you think of my idea of roles? I can give this as business (non-network, or Provider business), or as a end-user role.

Sue

*From:*Lifengkai (Fengkai) [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:*Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:48 PM
*To:*Susan Hares; 'Dave Hood';[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*RE: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Sue and all,

Yes, they are concepts with roles taken into consideration.  Here a little further explanation:

I think grouping of roles by level is just one way, but not should be, and the key point here is roles. We are trying to define intent with the role classifications (the other thread in this mail list).

For the accurate intent for each categories of different networks users, theirs roles appears fundamentally important and are the basis for the definition.

I think role identification and distinguishing should be the potential work.

Sue, any thoughts about this potential work? And how about others?

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Fengkai

*From:*Susan Hares [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:*Friday, June 05, 2015 2:35 AM
*To:*Lifengkai (Fengkai); 'Dave Hood';[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*RE: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Fengkai and all:

I agree with Yali that context is often omitted.   Thank you for filling in these business roles to the 2 site example.  In all of these, I believe we have grouping of roles by level under the users intent

HQ manager userànetwork manager(s)àindividual user(s)

It appears that at each level the intent is related, but at each level the intent’s (object, result and constraint) is refined into a different concept due to different roles.  Is this what it appears to you?

Sue

*From:*Ibnemo [mailto:[email-masked]]*On Behalf Of*Lifengkai (Fengkai)
*Sent:*Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:42 AM
*To:*Susan Hares; 'Dave Hood';[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Sue and all,

For the example, I see Yali has given one in her email, just copying here:

“For example, an end-user wants to make the communication between two sites is the minimum. For this intent, price is the context. Though context is omitted usually, it is really an important factor to affect the decision.”

I would like to add one more example for better understanding of the concept, and I would like to elaborate it from the point of user’s roles.

Enterprise A has one headquarter and three branches located separately, and the product department within enterprise A has one sub-department in headquarter and each branch.

Based on the product division, the product department manager wants:

1.sub-department in each branch can communicate with sub-department in headquarter

2.sub-department in each branch cannot communicate with each other

3.product department want to enjoy better quality of experience with a budget limit of $50,000

Then for the “User-intent-context” format,

ØUser, enterprise user with department manager role

ØIntent, sub-department connection between headquarter and braches

ØContext, better of quality of experience within the budget

For the network manager of the enterprise A, based on the product department manager’s requirements, the network manager wants:

1.connects the product sub-departments via: a) full mesh topology with ACLs for communication constraints between subnets; b)leased line between subnets.

2.SLA parameters configuration for guarantee the quality of experience

Then for the “user-intent-context” format,

ØUser, enterprise user with network manager role

ØIntent, topology set up for communication connection between subnets

ØContext, SLA parameters for quality of experience guaranteeing

Here is the example that I proposed for the illustration, more specially with roles involved.

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Fengkai

*From:*Susan Hares [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:09 AM
*To:*Lifengkai (Fengkai); 'Dave Hood';[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*RE: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Fengkai:

In this you are talking about the difference between the IT and Non-IT person’s context of an intent within a role.  I believe your examples show that

Useràintentàcontext

is very important as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-ibnemo-icim/states.   I am still struggling to understand how the “fitting” works.  Can you provide additional examples?

Sue

*From:*Ibnemo [mailto:[email-masked]]*On Behalf Of*Lifengkai (Fengkai)
*Sent:*Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:47 AM
*To:*Dave Hood; Susan Hares;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*Re: [Ibnemo] [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

Hi Dave and all,

Thanks for proposing the two valuable intent use cases.

For the use case 2, I agree that the IT employee needs to include the details of ports/protocols into his/her intent descriptions, but those may not be in the intent context scope of a non-IT employee. Have a further consideration with this, different users of the network have their own intent in a specific domain. Then the roles/actors of network users, such as end users, application developers, tenant IT/network administrators, operator network administrators, are valuable to be identified and distinguished, thus fitting the intent requirements of the network users with different roles.

Any thoughts about this consideration?

Best Regards,

Fengkai

*From:*sdn [mailto:[email-masked]]*On Behalf Of*Dave Hood
*Sent:*Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:38 AM
*To:*Susan Hares;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:*Zhoutianran; Xiayinben;[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*Re: [Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

An excerpt from an email I sent on the ONF NBI list, which may contain some useful thoughts:

I have always had trouble understanding what an intent really is, so I am looking forward to making the concept more precise.

When I click a link on a web page, I express an intent to invoke whatever that link offers. Completely below the surface is a layer stack, on-demand session establishment, DNS look-ups, server load balancers, and any number of other technological features that are of no interest to me. Why not use that as an example of intent?

Better yet, we talk about negotiation and selection. Suppose I want to buy a widget. I probably already have some idea whether I want to go to Amazon or EBay or somewhere else. Suppose it’s Amazon. I search Amazon’s catalog and receive an offer of several widgets, some new, some used, some with a choice of colour or other pertinent features. If I see nothing I like, I may open a new browser window and check out Best Buy or EBay (lots more hidden technology to make that happen!). Maybe I come back to the Amazon page, having found nothing I liked better somewhere else. Now I accept one of the offered widgets and go through the checkout process.

Do we agree that this is a fairly pure expression of intent as conceptualized in the paper? (If not, let’s talk about making a Skype call.)

Ok, that’s my intent as an internet user. Let’s assume the network is all SDN of one kind or another. I invoke my intent through a GUI onto software local to my PC, but I don’t think we can call the PC an SDN controller. It’s more an active mediator, a client to an SDN. As far as the network is concerned, the client makes DNS queries and swaps opaque TCP packets over a forwarding path that may already exist, or may need to be learned and set up on demand. This is about right, because the session content may well be encrypted end to end, and rightly.

To the SDN controller, my intent is satisfied by directing DNS queries to a known DNS server somewhere, and ensuring IP connectivity for the subsequent session. Hmmm… what happened to our intent-based NBI? The SDN offered my PC a packet interface with the properties of knowing how to recognize and route DNS queries specially, and general IP connectivity. My PC accepted the service offer implicitly by offering traffic to the data-plane interface. The network could be performing associated auxiliary services such as usage-based billing (think wireless roaming), so it’s more than just a dumb pipe.

If this is not a legitimate example of intent, it would be good to write the white paper in such a way that clearly excludes such cases.

Use case 2: suppose I am a corporate IT employee, and suppose that my intent is to have an E-Line between two of my campi. I necessarily care about ports and protocols; talk about intent being portable and protocol independent continues to confuse me completely. How can I order an E-line without caring about such details? [Nor is this intent portable.]

Obviously, an SDN controller is going to expose whatever actions and elements of information are germane to the service it offers, and if ports and protocols are germane to the service, so be it.

The SDN architecture, being recursive, models the north side of any controller as exposing an instance of an information model, customized for the intended client/customer/app/user. That being the case, how do we distinguish an NBI API that conveys intent (service: same thing?) from one that does not?

I have recently come to the view that granularity is the criterion by which an intent or service invocation is distinguished. Colloquially speaking, a service invocation is a single invocation across the API: give me E-Line. Now of course this turns into constraint negotiation, offer and acceptance, but what happens across the API is effectively one transaction. In contrast, what we might agree is **not** an intent or a service is the manipulation of a granular information model, the explicit visibility of multiple objects, how they are interrelated, their attributes, and the like.

·Network as a single lump vs some non-trivial topology.

·Chauffeur vs driving a car. Legitimate reasons to choose one option or the other, but the level of granularity is quite different. Shall we agree that driving is too granular to be considered intent?

This idea of granularity and detailed operations on the components (which of course may be complex entities themselves, virtualized into simple-appearing lumps) seems to me to capture the essence of what people are talking about when they say intent or service. I am not comfortable with the way I am expressing it, so if this is a step in a productive direction, or even if it’s not, I welcome suggestions to clarify the concept.

Dave

*From:*sdn [mailto:[email-masked]]*On Behalf Of*Susan Hares
*Sent:*Saturday, May 30, 2015 1:02 PM
*To:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Cc:*'Zhoutianran'; 'Xiayinben';[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
*Subject:*[Sdn] Defining a Common Model for intent

On this mail list, there has been a discussion of two types of information for Intent and Nemo: (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sdn/current/msg00646.html) :

1)What information is needed to represent a service request,

2)How to represent and transport the information for a request.

In order to define what information is needed to represent a 1) service request that signals Intent from an application to a controller, it is important to define Intent, and provide a clear model of Intent. Also, in describing real use-cases it is important that one uses the same definition and model for Intent in each use case.

In the current forums examining Intent (ODL NIC, ODL Nemo, OF NBI and Keystone, OPNFV Movie, OpenStack) there is a realization that Intent occurs at multiple layers.  The authors of draft-xia-ibnemo-icim have created a definition for intent and a unified model for defining intent which can handle 1 or multiple layers. The model suggest that:

1)A user has a intent that is expressed in a context.

2)Intent (usually) involves an object with a result, and optionally includes operations toward that result.

3)Operations conditions perform actions within/modified by constraints.

We believe this defines clearly what others are calling “pure intent” (objects + results) versus “constrained intent” (objects + operations + constraints).   The draft can be found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-ibnemo-icim/.   The authors are looking for feedback on the concepts in the draft.

Sue Hares

_______________________________________________
Ibnemo mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

_______________________________________________
Ibnemo mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição