Virtual face to face Intention - PowerPoint Presentation

1. Virtual face to faceIntentionNigel Davis (Ciena)20200415

2. IntentionBackgroundOfferIn terms of patterns of constrained capabilitiesRealizationIn terms of patterns of constrained capabilitiesContractAbout one or more capabilities to be provided over timeWhere the capabilities support a desired outcome/experience for the clientAgreement in terms of constraintsExpressed in terms of a shared a model of capabilities This will be a pruned and refactored version of the coreExpressed using a grammar (and 1 of 1 foldaway)Client has expectation, provider intentionMay be multiple clients/providersRangeable/constrainable properties (as per equipment discussion last week)And structure for expression of theseExpressed via an “order” which is nothing but the expression of constraint structureApplicationAt any boundaryProgression of refinementProvider owns capability (down to real physical stuff) and leases capability (Provider is a client of other providers)Where we are?Broadly applicable underpinning patterns (component-port and component-system)Relatively rich model of types of capabilitiesSomewhat specific model of specificationSketch of grammar structure Recognition of tooling as a basis for generation of interactionWhat next?Refinement of grammarConstraint modelRefinement of approach to modellingDefinition of tooling with various points of injection

3. IntentionTR-512.10TR-512.8

4. Constraint ModelRangeable/constrainable propertiesConsider the LTPUUID will be unspecified normallyThere may be a name/Label to apply once the LTP has been formedThe address field may provide the critical positioning constraintsThe referenced _accessPort (constraint) may provide further constraints and will bridge to an aspect of the equipmentThe referenced _supportingPc (constraint) may also provide some constraints leading to Equipment constraints (type etc.)The referenced _fdRuleGroup may provide some constraint constraints , it will not be a full rule groupThe referenced _ltpSpecReference will provide LTP and LP functional constraints, it will NOT be a full specEtc.ImplicationsFor (probably) every class in the model and (probably) every attribute the definition of structure and type should code into some generalized form of rangeable valueEven where the type is absolute in the instance, e.g., an integer, the property may instead contain a constraint that is complex and potentially not in any part an integer.Any property may reference a complex constraintSome relate simply to the eventual value of the property, others to structureNoteThe achievements may also be in terms of constraints not absolute values as the absolute values may not be known

5. Some decisions will be delegated to the provider, hence Expectation is constraintsThe client may be interested in the detail of the delegated decisions, hence actual state may be finer grain detail from that of ExpectationSome actual detail may be dynamic within the bounds of Expectation some may be fixed.OrderIntentionRealization DecisionExpectation Order ActionOrder ViewDe-abstractionOrder AchievementDiscern InterpretationSense Actual Achievement StateOrder ViewAbstractionrefineInfer implication

6. Diagnostic Intention via abstraction may apply policy based realization of test that tracks the dynamics of the networkWhere the delegation achieves fixed actual results the diagnostic intention may be updated to suitDiagnostic intention may be at a level deeper than the Expectation!I don’t care how it is met from an Order perspective, but I do from a diagnostics perspectiveIs Diagnostic Intention, at least in part, the OAM model??OrderIntentionRealization DecisionExpectation Order ActionDiagnostic IntentionOrder ViewDe-abstractionDiagnostic View De-abstractionOrder AchievementDiscern InterpretationSense Actual Achievement StateOrder ViewAbstractionDiagnostic AchievementDiagnostic View AbstractionrefinerefinerefineDiagnostic Realization DecisionDiagnostic Expectation Order ActionDiscern Diagnostic InterpretationSense Actual Diagnostic Achievement StateInfer implication