Subject: [Supa] PPT for agenda 5a （Gap analysis from SUPA's view）

From: "Jun Bi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:52:39 +0800

Hi All,

The attached file is the PPT for agenda 5a (Gap analysis from SUPA's view).

The draft was submitted by the deadline weeks ago, 

but the PPT is enhanced to reflect the recent discussions.

Best Regards,

Jun Bi 

SUPA BOF Agenda

Monday 3/23/2015

Afternoon Session I - 13:00 to 15:00

1. Note Well, logistics, agenda bashing (chairs, 5 min)

2. Introduction and scoping of BoF (AD and chairs, 5 min)

3. Policy Driven Service Management - John, Fukushima (15 min)

4. Distributed Data Center Use Case - TBA (15 min)

5. Gap Analysis 

  5a. SUPA view – Jun Bi (10 min)

  5b. Related Work in the Routing Area - Susan (10 min)

  5c. Related OpenSource Projects: OpenStack Congress, GBP, ODL GBP/NIC - Tom (10 min)  

6. Scope Discussion - 30 min

7. Questions to the audience (chairs, 15 minutes)

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:05:18 +0000

Hi Jun,

Thanks … helpful deck for those of us trying to keep up with everything on a part-time basis!

However, I believe that discussion of “Other working groups” starting on slide #5 should also cover the (open source) Open Network Operating System (ONOS) project’s Intent Framework, which would seem to provide a somewhat higher-order context for possible PBSM implementation based on Intents/Goals driving E-C-A rules. See http://onosproject.org/, and especially http://onos.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ONOS-Intent-Framework.pdf.

Or perhaps there some specific reasons why ONOS Intent Framework does not apply to the SUPA work…?

Avanti,
BobN

From: Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jun Bi
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:53 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Supa] PPT for agenda 5a （Gap analysis from SUPA's view）

Hi All,

Best Regards,

Jun Bi

SUPA BOF Agenda

Monday 3/23/2015

5. Gap Analysis

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:29:29 -0700

I agree with Bob.

I think that ONOS is applicable **as long as we take intent-based policy
models seriously**. Right now, I have seem some work on ECA policy rules,
but no work of any substance of undertaken in SUPA. (Well, to be honest, I
could argue that the intent-based work is not that substantive in other
areas as well...).

This begs the question, will we in SUPA do **both** ECA policy rules and
**intent-based (i.e., declarative)** policy rules? I said that we would in
the PBSM presentation, but **I would suggest that we add something to the
charter**, as the content and structure of ECA policy rules is very
different than that from intent-based policy rules.

That being said, I have the following comments on slide 6:
ODL has TWO approaches: GBP and NIC. GBP is really a relational model of
how two EPGs communicate and interact, while NIC is a different, more
generic, effort.

Comments on slide 7
In principle, OpenStack NIC is similar to ODL NIC. GBP was first defined in
ODL, so I would cover GBP in the ODL section in slide 6, and then simply
reference it here on slide 7.

OpenStack Congress on slide 7 needs some serious rework:

   - Congress is meant to drive all other OpenStack projects; it doesn't so
much "work in conjunction with keystone" as express facts and policies that
Keystone (or other modules) can use.

    - Congress is **based** on Datalog, but extends it in a number of ways
(I am one of the committers to the Congress grammar)

    - Datalog is entirely declarative, but is **not** pure first-order
logic (it is a subset of)

    - Congress does not yet "enforce" anything. Rather, it states what
should or should not be done or occur, and then some other entity fixes that

    - Congress is neither a "problem finder" or an "intelligent solver"
(especially the latter). Congress is basically a query language. We have
proposed Rule-X as an intelligent multi-constraint optimization solver that
will work with Congress. With respect to "problem finder", I assume you
mean "answer set programming" - AFAIK, nothing is yet prepared for this.

Please make these changes asap.

Finally, the gap analysis should also cover the TMF. I'll build a slide for
you on this later today.

regards,
John

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Natale, Bob <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, I believe that discussion of “Other working groups” starting on
> slide #5 should also cover the (open source) Open Network Operating System
> (ONOS) project’s Intent Framework, which would seem to provide a somewhat
> higher-order context for possible PBSM implementation based on
> Intents/Goals driving E-C-A rules. See http://onosproject.org/, and
> especially
> http://onos.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ONOS-Intent-Framework.pdf
> .
>
>
>
> *From:* Supa [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Jun Bi
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:53 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]'
> *Subject:* [Supa] PPT for agenda 5a （Gap analysis from SUPA's view）
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> *SUPA BOF Agenda*
> _______________________________________________
> Supa mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/supa
>
>

-- 
regards,
John