hash stringlengths 32 32 | doc_id stringlengths 5 12 | section stringlengths 5 1.47k | content stringlengths 0 6.67M |
|---|---|---|---|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.2.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS_RadioNetworkIntent-CON-1: The intent driven MnS producer for radio network should have capabilities enabling the MnS consumer to express radio network performance assurance for a specific RAN feature.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.2.3 Potential solution
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing RadioNetworkExpectation defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] to enable the MnS consumer to express radio network performance assurance for a specific RAN feature.
Enhancement Aspect1: Add following attributes as the ObjectContexts for the RadioNetworkExpectation:
rANFeatureContext, it represents the expected specific RAN feature for RAN Subnetwork that the intent expectation is applied. Following are the allowed values for RAN features:
- REDCAP: it represents the support of Reduced Capability (RedCap) and enhanced Reduced Capability (eRedCap) NR devices as defined in TS 38.300 [7].
- XR: it represents the support of eXtended Reality (XR) services that require high data rate and low latency communications as defined in TS 38.300 [7].
- AERIAL_UE_COMMUNICATION: it represents the Aerial UE Communication as defined in TS 38.300 [7].
- V2X: it represents the V2X communication as defined in TS 38.300 [7].
NOTE: Allowed values can be extended based on RAN specifications.4.2.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.2.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3 Use case #3: Assisting and reporting intent decomposition across intent handling functions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3.1 Description
| An intent-driven MnS producer can translate an intent and decompose it into one or more new intents. If these newly generated intent(s) cannot be handled by the intent-driven MnS producer, it can submit them to another intent-driven MnS producer(s). In this case, the former intent-driven MnS producer acts as the consumer of the latter intent driven MnS producer(s), to which the newly generated intents are submitted.
The issue arises when the decomposition of an intent into new intents is carried out by an intent driven MnS producer, these decomposed intents may be submitted to intent-driven MnS producers of managed domains that are not desired by the original intent-driven MnS consumer. The intent-driven MnS consumer needs to be able to assist the intent driven MnS producer regarding the decomposition of intents to other MnS producers. Furthermore, the intent driven MnS consumer needs to receive a report regarding this decomposition. This is also important for troubleshooting an intent-driven MnS producer, to check whether it is acting as expected.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_DCMP-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to allow an MnS consumer to specify a context to be able to assist the intent-driven MnS producer regarding the decomposition of an intent to other MnS producers.
REQ-Intent_DCMP-2: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to allow an intent-driven MnS consumer to receive a report regarding the decomposition of an intent to other MnS producers.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3.3.1 Potential solution #1
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing intent expectations and intent report information models defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
Intent expectations are enhanced with:
- A new expectation context that specifies the constraints applicable in the intent decomposition performed by the intent-driven MnS producer, such as a list of Intent Handling Functions identity among those under MnS consumer's authorization to which the intent decomposition is not recommended by the intent-driven MnS consumer.
The IntentReport IOC in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] is enhanced with following information:
- The identity of Intent Handling Functions to which the decomposed intents are sent.
- The identity of each intent and expectation resulting from the decomposition.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.3.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution provided in clause 4.3.3.1 is identified. This potential solution proposes enhancing the existing intent expectations by adding a new expectation context that allows the MnS consumer to specify intent handling functions that are not recommended for intent decomposition. This allows an MnS consumer to assist the MnS producer regarding decomposition of an intent. It also proposes enhancing the existing intent report to include information regarding decomposition of an intent. The implementation of this potential solution is not complex as it proposes enhancements to existing intent expectations and intent report information models.
Therefore, the potential solution described in clause 4.3.3.1 is a feasible solution to satisfy the requirements in clause 4.3.2.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4 Use case #4: Intent traceability
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.1 Description
| An intent consumer (owner) submits an intent to a single intent handling function. In some cases, in order to fulfil the intent an intent handling function may need to submit additional intent(s) to other intent handling functions. Such handling can occur multiple times across intent handling functions across multiple management and/or domain layers.
An operator/administrator needs visibility of the relationships between intents which have been created by the system. Since these are being created within/by the management systems (and not explicit consumers the operator may implement) it's important to know where they came from to allow 'trace-back' to the original consumer intent which started the cascade of subsequent intents. There is however no identified method, standardized or otherwise, which allows for such traceability.
Since intents can result in new intent(s) to multiple intent handling functions, likely with different implementations, it is insufficient to rely on external mechanisms such as logging or local network management audit tools to trace the intent. The information identifying each intent handling function which has handled the intent must be preserved along with the intent itself and accessible/meaningful within the content of each intent handling function. The intent consumer (owner) (e.g. Consumer A in figure 4.4.1-1) should be enabled to indicate whether they agree that their information be propagated beyond the recipient intent producer (e.g. Producer 1 in figure 4.1.1-1) to other intent producers (e.g. Producer 2 or 3 in figure 4.4.1-1).
The following figure provides an overview of such information and its handling:
Figure 4.4.1-1: Intent traceability information handling
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_Trace-1: The intent driven MnS producer should provide information in the intent to identify that an intent has been handled by a particular intent handling function.
REQ-Intent_Trace-2: The intent driven MnS producer should provide information (as defined in REQ-Intent_Trace-1) to identify any subsequent intents created by it as part of fulfilment.
REQ-Intent_Trace-3: The intent driven MnS producer should provide information (as defined in REQ-Intent_Trace-1) identifying the intent handling functions to subsequent intent(s) to allow traceability of the intent across multiple intent handling functions.
REQ-Intent_Trace-4: The intent driven MnS producer should provide a capability allowing the intent MnS consumer (owner) to indicate whether the MnS consumer agrees that their information can be propagated in case of intent decomposition beyond the recipient intent producer to other intent producers.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.3.1 Potential solution #1
| To address REQ-Intent_Trace-1, REQ-Intent_Trace-2 and REQ-Intent_Trace-3 this solution proposes adding a new data structure to the intent model definition to define the information to trace the decomposition of an intent into subsequent intents. The information is updated and propagated as new intent(s) are created as part of fulfilment.
The content proposed for the intent model definition would include:
- the identity of each intent handling function which decomposed the intent; and
- the identity of each intent resulting from the decomposition.
The handling of the information would be:
- a new intent created by an MnS Consumer is not required to populate this value, i.e. default is empty string;
- upon receipt of an intent, the Intent Handling Function updates the information to indicate it handled the intent by adding its identity to the incoming intent; and
- in the event the Intent Handling Function determines intent decomposition is required it create new intent(s) and propagates the information from the source intent to the new intent(s).
The visibility of this information is subject to the same access control as any other information exchanged between an authorised MnS consumer and producer. For example, the originating Intent Owner Consumer A in figure 4.4.1-1 will have access/visibility to its intents, including Intent A at Producer 1. Producer 1 is an authorised MnS consumer of and will have access/visibility of its intents at Producer 2 and Producer 3, including Intent A.1 and A.2 resulting from the decomposition of Intent A. When no further decomposition is required, no further update is made to the information.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.3.1 Potential solution #2
| To address REQ-Intent_Trace-4, this solution proposes adding a new attribute to the intent model definition to allow the MnS consumer indicate its preference for the propagation of intent traceability information.
The content proposed for the intent model definition would include:
- an attribute to indicate intent decomposition, e.g. 'includeTraceInfo' of type boolean
- default value of True
- value would be invariant
- configurable by MnS Consumer.
The handling of includeTraceInfo would be:
- a new intent will have includeTraceInfo default value of True;
- MnS Consumer may modify value of includeTraceInfo:
a) if includeTraceInfo =True, the recipient MnS Producer may include intent traceability information from the originating intent;
b) if includeTraceInfo =False, the recipient MnS Producer may not include intent traceability information from the originating intent;
- in the event of intent decomposition, the value of includeTraceInfo may or may not be propagated to subsequent intents at the discretion of each MnS Producer, i.e. in its role as MnS Consumer towards the subsequent MnS Producer(s).
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.4.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.5 Use case #5: Invariant Guidance in Intent Contexts
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.5.1 Description
| 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] describes a scenario where for an instantiated intent, the intent handler may need to decompose the intent into multiple derivative intents, each to be fulfilled by a separate other intent handler. There may be contexts in the intent which the MnS consumer desires that the other intent handlers understand them exactly as they were provided, i.e., without any modification by the first intent handler in the decomposition process.
As an example, the MNO may, for some decomposition use-cases, want to only use certain certified hardware (e.g., with certain security, privacy, energy consumption, other types of quality guarantees) to be used in the fulfilment of RAN or CN operations. This additional guidance to use this specified hardware or the quality constraints on the resources may be provided as part of the intent context.
The MnS consumer should be enabled to indicate the context which should be transmitted to other intent handlers without modification.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.5.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_InvarGui-1: The intent driven MnS should include a capability enabling the MnS consumer to indicate the requirements, goals and contexts which the MnS consumer recommends be copied into decomposed intents and transmitted to other intent handlers without modification.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.5.3 Potential solutions
| The "context" dataType, as defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], can be extended to include information about invariant guidance.
- Add a description for invariant guidance e.g. as: The Context can be used to indicate invariant guidance, e.g., which context is recommended to be propagated to all intent handler functions in the case where the intent is decomposed into multiple sub intents. The attribute contextInvariant is a flag to indicate if a specific context is recommended to be considered as in invariant guidance or not. The flag applies to context at the expectation level and intent target level.
- The following attribute would be added to the Context <<dataType>>, i.e.:
Addition to Table 6.2.1.3.4.2-1
Attribute Name
Support Qualifier
isReadable
isWritable
isInvariant
isNotifyable
contextInvariant
O
T
F
T
T
The new attribute can be defined as:
Attribute Name
Documentation and Allowed Values
Properties
contextInvariant
It indicates whether the specific context recommended to be considered as invariant guidance to be transferred to subsequent intent handling functions without any modification.
type: Boolean
multiplicity: 1
isOrdered: N/A
isUnique: N/A
defaultValue: None
isNullable: False
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.5.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBA
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.6 Use case #6: Intent Interpretation Assistance Information
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.6.1 Description
| A similar intent can be instantiated on several intent handlers, e.g., on several management systems each responsible for a for a different domain. 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] supports intent negotiation that enables interaction between the MnS producer and MnS consumer to clarify the ability to fulfill intent requirements that may otherwise not be realizable owing to their abstract nature. For the same intents that are sent to several MnS producers, negotiation with the several MnS producers to clarify the intents can be resource wasteful.
The intent driven management service can minimize the number of negotiation exchanges while allowing effective interpretation of intents by reusing the interpretation information. The MnS consumer compiles prior interactions, e.g. previous IntentNegotiationReports or intentNegotiationConsumerFeedback, and shares those prior interactions as intent interpretation assistance information with the handler. The Mns consumer should be enabled to provide this intent interpretation assistance information that can be used by the intent handler to support the interpretation of the intent. As an example, if during intent negotiation, a set of options were provided by MnS producer and the MnS consumer selects one option, the MnS consumer may want the MnS producer to reuse this information, so the MnS consumer can provide it to the MnS producer for reuse.
NOTE: The intent interpretation assistance information can be visualized as a "frequently asked questions (FAQ)" section used in many human-oriented service descriptions (e.g. on service providers' websites).
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.6.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_Interpretation_Assistance_1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability enabling the MnS consumer to provide information containing prior intent negotiations to the handler that can then be used by the intent handler to support the interpretation of the intent.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.6.3 Potential solutions
| - Add to the Intent IOC a description of the information about intent interpretation e.g., as:
a) The intent IOC includes intentInterpretationAssistanceInfo which contains prior negotiation interactions from the MnS consumer that are provided to the intent handling function and can be used by the intent handling function to support the interpretation of the intent. The intentInterpretationAssistanceInfo is a pair that captures the previous MnS producer questions, requests or reports and the corresponding consumer responses. It may include following information related to a timestamp, applicable intent context, and the previous MnS producer to MnS consumer interactions.
1) For example, the pair may include a key that is "the set of previous intent fulfilment options that were provided by MnS producer" as well as the corresponding value which is "the option that was selected by the MnS consumer".
- Introduce a data type and a corresponding attribute on the Intent IOC for intent interpretation assistance information say named intentInterpretationAssistanceInfo. The attribute is readable and writable.
- The intentInterpretationAssistanceInfo is a pair that captures the previous questions, requests or reports and the corresponding consumer responses. Examples can include the following attributes/ information:
a) A timestamp.
b) Conditions: the conditions under which the intent was previously sent.
c) Producer report: the request sent by the MnS producer.
d) Consumer response: the responses provided by the MnS consumer for the specific MnS producer report.
Editor's Note: An example of the exchanged information to be added.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.6.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBA
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.7 Use case #7: Enhancement of intent exploration
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.7.1 Description
| In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing use case and requirements for intent Exploration is defined in clause 5.3.5. The IntentExplorationReport is defined in clause 6.2.1.3.19 to represent the intent exploration result, which includes the list of expectation exploration results. However, following scenarios are not supported:
- MnS consumer requests intent handling function to periodically report the best target values. For example, MnS consumer request intent handling function to report the best value for UENumberTarget of RadioServiceExpectation by the period of an hour. In this case, MnS producer need to execute the exploration process and send the intent exploration report with the best values for UENumberTarget to MnS consumer every hour. As the intent exploration process is complex and time-consuming (e.g. MnS producer may perform simulation activities to explore the best values), the MnS consumer needs to obtain the status (e.g., RUNNING, FINISHED, FAILED) of the intent exploration process for specific intent expectation (s).
- MnS consumer requests intent handling function to explore best target values for individual objects (e.g. area, cells) indicated in one IntentExpectation. For example, MnS consumer request to obtain the best values for UENumberTarget applied to ExpectationObject which represents a list of cells. In the request, MnS consumer wants to obtain the best values for UENumberTarget for each cell in addition to the best value for the list of cells. In this case, MnS producer needs to provide the following information in the intent exploration report:
a) The best UENumberTarget value for the list of cells represented by the ExpectationObject.
b) The best UENumberTarget value for each item of the list of cells represented by the ExpectationObject.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.7.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS-IntentExploration-CON-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability enabling the MnS consumer to request to periodically obtain the exploration report.
REQ-IDMS-IntentExploration-CON-2: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability enabling the MnS consumer to obtain the best target values for individual object represented by the ExpectationObject in an IntentExpectation.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.7.3 Potential solution
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing Intent and IntentReport IOC defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
Enhancement Aspect1: Extend the IntentReportControl <<dataType>> with following aspects:
- Extend the attribute "observationPeriod" in IntentReportControl <<dataType>> to indicate the time period for which the IntentExplorationReport is observed and reported. If the attribute "observationPeriod" is presented in the Intent instance with intentMgmtPurpose = EXPLORATION, MnS producer periodically explore the best target values and send the IntentExplorationReport to MnS consumer at the end of each observation period. If the attribute "observationPeriod" is absent in the Intent instance with intentMgmtPurpose = EXPLORATION, MnS producer performs the exploration process one time and send the IntentExplorationReport after finishing exploration process.
Enhancement Aspect2: For the ExpectationTarget <<dataType>> used for the attribute targetExplorationResult, the targetContext can be cellContext, coverageAreaPolygonContext. In this case, multiple TargetExplorationResult instances can be created for the same target name (e.g. UENumberTarget) with different cellContexts or coverageAreaPolygonContext. Following is one example for TargetExplorationResult instances in one IntentExplorationResult.
[UENumberTarget, IS_LESS_THAN, 10]
[UENumberTarget, IS_LESS_THAN, 4, Cell1]
[UENumberTarget, IS_LESS_THAN, 3, Cell2]
[UENumberTarget, IS_LESS_THAN, 3, Cell3]
Enhancement Aspect3: extend the IntentExplorationReport <<dataType>> with following aspects:
- Add the attribute "expectationExplorationStatus" to represent the status of intent exploration. The allowed values can be NOT_STARTED, RUNNING, FINISHED, FAILED.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.7.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8 Use case #8: Support to express guarantee requirements in an intent
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.1 Description
| In today's highly dynamic and heterogeneous network environment, Intent-Driven Management Service (IDMS) is emerging as the foundational paradigm for advanced network operations and automation. Nevertheless, practical deployments reveal a critical capability gap: the absence of robust support for dynamic resource reservation and release.
Intent expression, translation, negotiation, and fulfilment are intrinsically coupled to resource allocation e.g., bandwidth, capacity and spectrum. When the IDMS is used for communication service assurance in a specific time window, the MnS consumer should be allowed to express the guarantee requirements in the intent. Then, the MnS Producer can perform some actions (e.g., resource reservation) to guarantee the intent fulfilment in the future. Because these resources are highly time-variant, the current IDMS lacks the ability for the MnS Consumer to proactively reserve or release them on demand. This shortcoming results in inefficient resource utilisation and reduced flexibility in intent fulfilment. Additionally, after an MnS Producer has classified an intent as "FEASIBLE" following the initial feasibility check, subsequent changes in network resource can render the intent "INFEASIBLE" before intent fulfilment is requested without actions taken for guarantee. This temporal inconsistency, caused by the absence of continuous feasibility validation, will lead to fulfilment failures, undermining the reliability of intent-based operations and degrading overall network performance.
An intent defines one or more requirements, goals and constraints that should be ensured for the intent to be considered fulfilled. The requirements are evaluated against the state of the network during the intent fulfilment feasibility check. Even if the result is feasible, no guarantees are explicitly provided by the MnS producer to ensure that the requirements will be continuously fulfilled over time. While the MnS producer may find a solution that meets the requirements when the intent is accepted, it may later degrade due to over-allocation, faults, or other issues.
To tackle this issue, the concept of guaranteed requirements is introduced. Such requirements should be considered for forward-looking sustained compliance. The MnS Producer should be able to utilize different methods to guarantee the intent fulfilment in the future.
NOTE: The guaranteed requirements may apply to all or part of an intent - that is, to the entire intent or to specific expectations. This study will determine which aspects of an intent should be covered by guaranteed requirements.
Since in reality there is no way to guarantee something all the time (i.e., there is always a probability that a requirements will be breached), Guaranteed requirements are associated with a confidence level that expresses the probability of successfully in fulfilling the requirements. The confidence level is specified as a probability threshold and is provided by the MnS producer. How to express confidence may depend on the context of the intent, e.g. for a connectivity service-related intent, the confidence may be expressed as service availability and service reliability. How the MnS producer will provide the confidence level to the requirements is implementation specific.
Since guarantees may not extend indefinitely, the MnS consumer may specify one or more guarantee periods over which the MnS producer provides the confidence level. The MnS consumer may specify multiple guarantee periods for the guarantee if it wants to have multiple time intervals where the expectations should be guaranteed. For example, if MnS Consumer wants to have expectations guaranteed only on weekdays, during business hours, etc.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS_Guarantee-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to allow MnS consumer to express an intent to be guaranteed and which expectations requirement in an intent should be guaranteed.
REQ-IDMS_Guarantee-2: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to allow MnS consumer to specify the guarantee period.
REQ-IDMS_Guarantee-3: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to report to the MnS consumer about the confidence level of fulfilling the guaranteed expectations at time of reporting.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.3.1 Potential solution #1
| To support to express guarantee requirements in an intent, the following enhancements are proposed:
- Add a new attribute guaranteeIndicator in the Intent IOC to allow the MnS Consumer to specify Guarantee Requirements in the intent. guaranteeIndicator attribute can be on intent expectation level.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.3.2 Potential solution #2
| Enhancement Aspect 1:
A new generic type of intentContext and expectationContext is proposed to be added to the Intent <<IOC>> and IntentExpectation <<dataType>>, respectively.
The presence of this new context indicates that the associated requirements should be guaranteed by the MnS producer. When the context is set at the intent level (intentContext), all expectation within that intent should be guaranteed. When it is set only to some of the intent expectations (expectationContext), only those expectations should be guaranteed.
The new guarantee period context specifies the time intervals for which the MnS Producer shall evaluate the confidence level of fulfilment, as explained in clause 4.8.1.
Allowed values:
- contextAttribute: "guaranteePeriod"
- contextCondition: "IS_ALL_OF"- contextValueRange: a list of SchedulingTime <<choice>> defined in TS 28.622 [6].
Enhancement Aspect 2:
The confidence level that is calculated by the MnS Producer considering all guarantee periods should be reported as part of the intentFulfilmentReport, following the reporting period set by observationPeriod attribute of IntentReportControl <<dataType>>.
A new optional attribute guaranteeConfidenceLevel is proposed to be added to the IntentFulfilmentReport <<dataType>> and to the ExpectationFulfilmentResult <<dataType>>, to indicate the guarantee confidence level calculated by the MnS Producer.
Even though the guarantee level is reported as part of the fulfilment report, the reported value shall be interpreted as the confidence level associated with the guaranteed expectations. For example, if an intent expectation is defined as a guarantee expectation for a maximum delay of 10 ms, and the corresponding reported confidence level is 90%, this indicates that there is a 90% confidence that the latency will remain below 10 ms during the guarantee periods, even if the current observed fulfilment temporarily exceeds 10 ms.
The new attribute is provided when the corresponding intent or intent expectation is set for guarantee.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.8.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9 Use case #9: Intent handling capability configuration, registration and discovery
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.1 Description
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.1.1 Intent handling capability description
| In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing use case, requirements and solution (including IntentHandlingCapability <<dataType>>) for intent handling capability obtaining are defined, which allows the MnS consumer to query the intent handling capabilities for a specific intent handling function. The use case also describes that different intent handling functions are deployed to support different areas of the same intent expectation object domain. However, the IntentHandlingCapability <<dataType>> (including supportedExpectationObjectType and supportedExpectationTargetInfoList) is not allowed to describe the supported area information. In additional, for radio network intent, multiple intent handling functions can be deployed to support different radio access technologies (e.g. EUTRAN, NR) and/or different frequencies. It is important to describe the supported radio access technologies (e.g. and frequencies for the radio network intent handling functions.
Several optional intent negotiation functionalities (including Intent Feasibility check, Intent Exploration and Intent Fulfilment Negotiation) are introduced in the 3GPP TS 28.312 [1]. One intent handling function may support all the negotiation functionalities or part of the negotiation functionalities. For example, intent handling function A support both Intent Feasibility check and Intent Exploration functionalities, while intent handling function B only support Intent Feasibility check functionality. So, it is important to allow MnS consumer to know which negotiation capabilities can be provided by a specific intent handling function.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.1.2 Intent handling capability registration and discovery
| In 3GPP TS 28.537 [6], the existing use case, requirements and solution (including MnSInfo IOC) for MnS discovery are defined, which allows MnS consumer to retrieve the list of MnS instances which can provide the intent driven management capability from MnS Registry. In this case, MnS consumer needs to send the query request to each intent handling function (represented by mnsAddress of the retrieved MnS instances from MnS Registry) to obtain the detailed intent handling capabilities.
However, in some scenarios, MnS consumer may need to request to retrieve a MnS instance with a specific intent handling capability from MnS Registry.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.1.3 Intent handling capability configuration
| As 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] described, multiple intent handling functions maybe deployed to support different expectation objects or to support different areas of the same intent expectation object domain. Operator may need to configuration the intent handling capability for each intent handling function with different responsibilities. For example, intent handling function A is configured to support handling radio service intent in the Venue A, while intent handling function B is configured to support handling radio service intent in the Venue B.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS_IHCO-CON-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have capabilities enabling an MnS consumer to obtain intent handling capabilities of each intent handling function, including supported contexts.
NOTE: Examples of contexts to be included as part of the intent handling capabilities are the ObjectContexts and the ExpectationContexts as defined in clause 6.2.2.1 of 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
REQ-IDMS_IHCO-CON-2: The intent driven MnS producer should have capabilities enabling an MnS consumer to obtain intent negotiation capability of a specific intent handling function.
REQ-IDMS_IHCO-CON-3: The 3GPP management system should have capabilities enabling the configuration of the intent handling capability for a specific intent handling function.
Editor's Note: Which content of the intent handling capability can be configured needs further investigation.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.3 Potential solution
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing IntentHandlingFunction defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
Enhancement Aspect1: Add following attributes for IntentHandlingCapability <<dataType>>:
- supportedObjectContextInfoList, it represents the list of specific ObjectContexts supported by the intent handling function. The new SupportedObjectContextInfo datatype includes the supportedObjectContextAttribute, supportedObjectContextCondition and supportedObjectContextValueRange attributes.
- supportedExpectationContextInfoList – it represents the list of specific ExpectationContexts supported by the intent handling function. The new SupportedExpectationContextInfo datatype includes the supportedExpectationContextAttribute, supportedExpectationContextCondition and supportedExpectationContextValueRange attributes.
Enhancement Aspect2: Add following attributes for IntentHandlingFunction <<IOC>>:
- supportedNegotiationFunctionalities, it represents the list of intent negotiation functionalities supported by the intent handling function. The type is ENUM with allowed values: FEASIBILITYCHECK, EXPLORATION and FULFILMENT_WITH_NEGOTIATION. If the value is absent, none of the intent negotiation capabilities are not supported by the intent handling function.
- intentHandlingScope, representing the scope of received intent that the intent handling function can support to address, the allowed values can be RAN, or CN.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.9.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.10 Use Case#10: Radio network delivering in transient overload scenario
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.10.1 Description
| This use case describes a scenario where a MnS consumer express intent containing an expectation for ensuring a radio network in transient overload scenarios (e.g., high-speed rail or subway systems) to a MnS producer. In transient overload scenarios, the high load caused by massive user access and bursty traffic typically lasts only a few seconds specifically when trains pass through a cell, while traffic volume remains extremely low during other periods.
In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing use case and requirements for intent containing an expectation for delivering a radio network is described in clause 5.1.2. The RadioServiceExpectation is defined to represent MnS consumer's expectations for radio network delivering in the specified area, and it serves to support service assurance efforts. However, transient overload scenario is not supported.
- MnS consumer expresses the radio network delivering expectation with transient load information. It can help MnS producer identify the actual high load information when these shot-duration, high-impact events occur thereby supporting network expansion decision-making.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.10.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS_RadioServiceIntent-CON-1: The intent driven MnS producer for radio network should have capabilities enabling the MnS consumer to express transient load requirements.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.10.3 Potential solution
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing RadioNetworkExpectation defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
Enhancement Aspect1: Add following attributes as the ExpectationTargets for the RadioNetworkExpectation to support transient overload requirements:
- PrbHighLoadRatio, it represents the load target for the radio network that the intent expectation is applied. The detailed definition for PrbHighLoadRatio see TS 28.554 [8]. The type is Real.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.10.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11 Use case #11: Enhancing intent feasibility check capability
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.1 Description
| This use case describes proposed enhancements for feasibility check, enabling intent-driven MnS consumer to receive information regarding how to make an infeasible intent feasible together with feasibility check in case the intent is deemed as infeasible. This will support MnS consumers to understand the changes needed for a feasible intent.
In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], clause 5.3.3.1 states the following:
"In case the result of intent fulfilment feasibility check is infeasible, MnS producer notifies the MnS consumer the reason of infeasibility and corresponding recommendations, then the MnS consumer decides how to handle the issue that intent is infeasible, e.g. update the intent, suspend the intent, delete the intent, etc."
However, the issue is the IntentFeasibilityCheckReport specified in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], clause 6.2.1.3.10 does not include corresponding recommendations. The MnS consumer may request exploration as specified in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] Clause 5.3.5, based on inFeasibleExpectationInfos which is an optional attribute indicating the infeasible expectations including infeasible targets. However, if the inFeasibleExpectationInfos attribute is not supported, then it is very difficult for the intent-driven MnS consumer to update an infeasible intent as they do not have the recommendation on how to make it feasible.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_FEAS1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to enable the authorized MnS consumer to receiverecommended values for infeasible targets.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.3.1 Potential solution #1 for a new procedure of feasibility check with exploration
| This solution proposes to reuse the existing generic intent exploration report and intent feasibility check report defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] and to enhance the Intent <<IOC>>.
In order to enable an MnS consumer to request a feasibility check with corresponding recommendations, a procedure is proposed with ensuring feasibility check with exploration is supported and enabled by a new allowed value "FEASIBILITYCHECK_WITH_EXPLORATION" that is to be included for intentMgmtPurpose attribute of Intent <<IOC>> which is specified in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], clause 6.2.1.4. When feasibility check with exploration is requested by the intent-driven MnS consumer, the intent driven MnS producer can report corresponding recommendations for infeasible expectations with existing IntentExplorationReport <<dataType>>, together with existing IntentFeasibilityCheckReport <<dataType>>.
This solution does not have any impact on the intent lifecycle management states studied in clause 4.13 of the present document.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.3.2 Potential solution #2 Extend inFeasibleTarget with recommended values
| This solution proposes to reuse and enhance the existing IntentFeasibilityCheckReport<<dataType>>defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
Enhancement Aspect1: Extend the type for attribute "inFeasibleTargets" from "String" to "inFeasibleTargetInfo <<dataType>>", which includes following attributes:
- targetName, represents the targetName for the inFeasibleTarget.
- recommendedValue, represents the recommended value for the inFeasibleTarget.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.11.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Two potential solutions are identified in clause 4.11.3. Both potential solution #1 and potential solution #2 support the capability to allow MnS consumer to receive recommended values for infeasible targets in an infeasible intent.
The implementation of both potential solutions is not complex. Therefore, both potential solutions described in clause 4.11.3 are feasible solutions.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.12 Use case #12: Documentation for the overview of intent driven management functionalities
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.12.1 Description
| In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], several intent management functionalities (including but not limited to Intent handling capability obtaining, intent exploration, intent feasibility check, intent report management) are introduced in different releases. However, the overview of intent driven management functionalities and corresponding usage for different phases are missing. It is important and useful to illustrate the intent driven management functionalities in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1].
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.12.2 Potential requirements
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.12.3 Potential solution
| It proposes to introduce a new concept section in clause 4 in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] as showed below to illustrate the overview of intent driven management functionalities.
4.X Overview of intent driven management functionalities for different phases
4.X.1 Introduction
The intent management functionalities for different phases include:
- Intent investigation and pre-evaluation
- Intent fulfilment
Above intent management functionalities applied for all intent categorizes, including Intent-CSC, Intent-CSP and Intent-NOP.
4.X.2 Intent investigation and pre-evaluation
In this phase, the MnS consumer finds out what intent content (a list of expectations) is feasible before expressing the intent expectations to be fulfilled by the intent handling function. The network (including NEs) will not be changed during this phase. This includes three functionalities:
- Intent handling capability obtaining. The functionality allows MnS consumer to find the intent handling function which has the necessary domain responsibilities and supports their required intent expectations. The MnS consumer can subscribe or query the intent handling capabilities (e.g., supported ExpectationObject, supportedExpectationTarget) for a specific intent handing function.
- Intent exploration. The functionality allows MnS Consumer to explore what the results of the wanted intent expectations would be and what is the best result the intent handling function can achieve. The MnS consumer can explore the best value(s) for specific intent target(s) (e.g. NumberofUEs, RANEnergyConsumption).
- Intent feasibility check. The functionality allows MnS consumer to verify or check the feasibility whether the proposed intent expectation is possible for an intent handling function.
4.X.3 Intent fulfilment:
In this phase, the intent handling function verifies the received intent and fulfils the given intent within its domains of responsibility. This includes following functionalities:
- Intent translation and execution. The functionality enables the intent handling function to translate the received intent to executable actions and performing the actions.
- Intent fulfilment evaluation. The functionality enables the intent handling function to evaluate the result about the intent fulfilment and generate the intent fulfilment reports. The intent handling function needs to continuously perform intent translation, execution and evaluation to ensure the intent fulfilment.
- Intent fulfilment negotiation. The functionality enables the intent handling function and the MnS consumer to agree on the best way to fulfil an intent.
- Intent conflict management. The functionalities enable the intent handling function to detect the intent related conflicts and collaborate with MnS consumer to resolve the conflicts. Following mechanism can be used to resolve the conflicts to improve the intent fulfilment:
- Intent priority and expectation preference. The functionality enable intent handling function resolve intent related conflicts based on intent priority and expectation preference specified by MnS consumer.
- Intent utility function. The functionality defines a method by which MnS consumers can express the relative value of an intent's expectations to assist the intent handling functions in fulfilling their intents in the most acceptable manner.
Editor's Note: The above content maybe updated based on R20 progress.
NOTE: A mapping between the different phases described in 4.X.2 and 4.X.3 and the high-level phases described in Annex B in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] should be discussed and addressed during R20 normative work.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.12.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Only one potential solution has been identified, which is feasible.
4.13 Use case #13: Investigation on the intent lifecycle management state transition
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.1 Description
| 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] studies the state transitions during fulfilment phase. However, the intent Lifecycle management states that describes the pre-evaluation phase (i.e. intent feasibility check and intent exploration) and negotiation in intent fulfilment phase is missing. The main difference between the pre-evaluation phase, fulfilment phase and negotiation in intent fulfilment phase is on the intentMgmtPurpose. Thus, investigation on the intent lifecycle management state transition should be made, including the intent lifecycle management state transition diagram and the state transition events based on the intentMgmtPurpose.
In clause 4.7 of 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the state transitions have been described in figure 4.7-1. However, how intent negotiation, feasibility check, and validity are mapped to this figure and represented in intent state diagram is missing. Additionally, it is not clear that the state diagram and state transition events are combined in one figure. Thus, further enhancements should be made in intent handling state and lifecycle management from several aspects, including but not limited to the following:
- Addressing the issue of the unclear combination of the state diagram and state transition events in one figure by explicitly defining new states and state transitions.
- Clarifying the issues with the state transition events.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.2 Potential requirements
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.3.1 Potential solution #1
| It proposes to add intent lifecycle management state transition diagram and intent lifecycle management state transition table to indicate the state transitions. Figure 4.13.2.1 shows the intent lifecycle management state diagram, where the number in the figure identify the changes to the intent lifecycle management state. The explanations for the changes are described in table 4.13.2.1.
Figure 4.13.2.1: intent lifecycle management state transition diagram
The transition numbers in the first column represent the intent lifecycle management state changes in figure 4.13.2.1. The interactions specified under the column "Intent lifecycle management state transition events" of table 4.13.2.1 shall be present for the transition.
NOTE 1: The transition numbers do not indicate any strict order and not correspond to procedure steps.
NOTE 2: Figure 4.13.2.1 may not be complete, and other states and transitions may be added.
Table 4.13.2.1: The intent lifecycle management state transition diagram table
Transition number
Intent lifecycle management state transition events
Intent lifecycle management state
1
The MnS producer creates the intent instances for intent exploration based on the received intent creation request, with the intentMgmtPurpose specified as "EXPLORATION" and the value of specific intent targets or contexts that need to be explored initially set to 'NULL'.
EXPLORATION
2
The MnS producer creates the intent instances for intent feasibility check based on the received intent creation request, with the intentMgmtPurpose specified as "FEASIBILITYCHECK" or "FEASIBILITYCHECK_WITH_EXPLORATION".
FEASIBILITYCHECK
3
The MnS producer triggers the exploration process when intentMgmtPurpose is specified as "FEASIBILITYCHECK_WITH_EXPLORATION" and the feasibilityCheckResult is infeasible.
EXPLORATION
4
The MnS producer creates or modify the intent instances during fulfilment phase based on the received request, with the intentMgmtPurpose specified as "FULFILMENT_WITH_NEGOTIATION" or "FULFILMENT_WITHOUT_NEGOTIATION".
FULFILMENT
5
The MnS producer triggers the negotiation process. The process only can be triggered when intentMgmtPurpose is specified as "FULFILMENT_WITH_NEGOTIATION".
NEGOTIATION
6
The MnS producer finishes the negotiation process.
FULFILMENT
NOTE 3: The table 4.13.2.1 also provides information regarding the impact of the potential solution provided in clause 4.11.3.1 for enhancing intent feasibility check capability. The potential solution provided in clause 4.11.3.1 does not require a new intent lifecycle management state in potential solutions studied in clause 4.13.3.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.3.2 Potential solution #2
| It proposes to add a new intent handling state diagram based on figure 4.13.3.2-1. New FULFILLING and EXPLORING states are defined to represent the full lifecycle of the intent and Figure 4.13.3.2-1 shows the intent handling state diagram, where the numbers identify the state changes. The explanations for the state changes are described in table 4.13.3.2-1.
Figure 4.13.3.2-1: Intent handling state diagram
Table 4.13.3.2-1: The intent handling state transition table
Transition number
The state transition events
State
1
Upon receiving an intent creation request, the MnS Producer creates the corresponding intent instance. The MnS Producer verifies the intent syntax, assess its compliance with the MnS Producer's supported capabilities, and validates its overall correctness. If the intent creation request is accepted, the intent state transitions to RECEIVED. If the request is rejected, the intent state transitions to TERMINATED.
RECEIVED
2
The MnS Producer may perform a feasibility check of the intent instance by transitioning it to the EXPLORING state. In this state, the MnS Producer and MnS Consumer may exchange negotiation or modification requests, or terminate the intent. The transition to EXPLORING may occur after the intent has been received, before the fulfilment phase to assess its feasibility, or upon a specific request from the MnS Consumer. The request can be issued by the MnS Consumer when the intent state is FULFILING, DEGRADED or FULFILED.
EXPLORING
3
If the intent is correct and is accepted, it may directly transition to FULFILLING state, or it may do so after the EXPLORING state or upon a specific request from the MnS Consumer. In the FULFILLING state, the intent handling function initiates the necessary actions to meet the intent requirements.
FULFILLING
4
If the MnS Producer determines that it is unable to take any further actions to fulfil the intent, the intent state transitions to DEGRADED.
DEGRADED
5
The MnS producer evaluates that the intent has been fulfilled.
FULFILLED
6
TThe MnS Producer determines that the intent, which was previously not fulfilled, has recovered and is now considered FULFILLED.
FULFILLED
7
The MnS Producer determines that the intent, which was previously considered FULFILLED, is no longer meeting the stated requirements after a period of observation.
DEGRADED
8
Upon request by the MnS Consumer, the MnS Producer configures the intentAdminState attribute with the value "DEACTIVATED" and the intent transitions to SUSPENDED.
SUSPENDED
9
The MnS Producer modifies the intent instance based on the received intent modification request. Correspondingly, the intent state shall transition from EXPLORING, SUSPENDED, FULFILLING, or DEGRADED to RECEIVED.
RECEIVED
10
The MnS producer deletes the intent instances upon receiving the intent deletion request.
TERMINATED
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.13.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Two solutions have been proposed concerning the lifecycle management state transitions. The evaluation considers how well each solution aligns with the intent states already defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the clarity and completeness of the state transitions, and the implementation complexity. 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] already defines lifecycle states ACKNOWLEDGED, FULFILLED, DEGRADED, SUSPENDED and TERMINATED.
Potential solution #1 introduces an intent lifecycle management state diagram defining discrete states for EXPLORATION, FEASIBILITYCHECK, FULFILMENT_WITH_NEGOTIATION and FULFILMENT_WITHOUT_NEGOTIATION. This explicit split between exploration, feasibility check and fulfilment clarifies the existence of different management purposes for the intent instance, but the proposal does not clearly explain how transitions occur when the intent is modified (the management purpose of an existing intent instance is changed by the MnS consumer). The value for adding extra states for each of the management purposes is also not clear.
Potential solution #2 proposes an intent handling state diagram with states RECEIVED, EXPLORING, FULFILLING, DEGRADED, FULFILLED, SUSPENDED and TERMINATED. These states map naturally to those in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1]: RECEIVED corresponds to ACKNOWLEDGED (initial state after creation), while FULFILLED, DEGRADED, SUSPENDED and TERMINATED mirror the normative states. The EXPLORING state groups together feasibility checking and negotiation. This reflects the 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] description that the MnS producer performs an automatic feasibility check upon receiving or modifying an intent and reports the result to the consumer, who may modify, suspend or delete the intent. By combining pre‑evaluation and fulfilment phases and introducing a separate FULFILLING state for execution, solution #2 offers a simple and implementable state machine.
In summary, solution #1 provides detailed pre‑fulfilment phases but diverges from existing 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] states and introduces extra complexity. Solution #2 maintains fidelity with existing specification states, unifies feasibility checking and negotiation, and introduces only two transient states (EXPLORING and FULFILLING) between intent creation and completion. This simplicity makes the state machine easier to understand and implement while still supporting negotiation and fulfilment handling.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.14 Use case #14: Intent expectation satisfied information
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.14.1 Description
| In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing intentReport allows the IDMS consumer to obtain the values of KPI as indicated by the corresponding expectation targets. However, this information may not accurately reflect the actual situation. For example, considering an intent that includes a radio network expectation with the target aveDLRANUEthptTarget, the existing intent report provides the average value of the downlink RAN UE throughput and tells whether the intent expectation is fulfilled or not based on the average value. However, in the case where the average value is impacted by some extreme values, the fulfilled intent report will miss the information that the majority of UE experience doesn't fulfil the UE throughput specified in the target. Such information matters because it helps the network operator to have a better understanding on the intent expectation satisfaction. The report can include the information besides the average information, which can be entity based, or time based, and is derived through statistical measurement or calculation, such as distributions, range or std deviation.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.14.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_IESI-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have a capability providing information besides average value in the intent report.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.14.3 Potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.14.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.15 Use case #15: Relation and Interaction with MnS producers for AI/ML Management
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.15.1 Description
| This use case describes a scenario where an intent driven MnS producer interacts and coordinates with MnS producers for AI/ML management which is specified in 3GPP TS 28.105 [10]. Such coordination can enable the intent-driven MnS producer to both leverage AI/ML for its own internal intent handling tasks, as well as for when AI/ML processing might be needed in the network as an outcome of processing the intents.
As an example of leveraging AI/ML, in order for the intent-driven MnS producer to fulfil an expectation, the intent driven MnS producer may request to control the inference, e.g., activate/deactivate the ML model/models, configure the allowed ranges of the inference output parameters, request fine-tuning of an ML model etc. These are possible cases whereby the intent driven MnS producer can use an ML model and interact as an MnS consumer with MnS producers described in 3GPP TS 28.105 [10], clause 6 for ML model lifecycle management, such as ML model training, ML testing, ML model deployment, AI/ML inference, AIML Inference emulation.
In the case of AI/ML being leveraged as an outcome of the intent handling, an example can be considered whereby in order for the intent-driven MnS producer to check the feasibility of an intent or exploration of an intent in pre-evaluation phase as specified in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the intent-driven MnS producer may request, for example, AIML Inference emulation before the ML model is applied for fulfilment in production network.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.15.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_AIML-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to interact with MnS producers for ML model lifecycle management in both intent pre-evaluation phase and intent fulfilment phase.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.15.3 Potential solutions
| This potential solution considers enabling an intent-driven MnS producer to interact with MnS producers for ML model lifecycle management. The solution does not require updating the NRM or already specified interfaces, and it only necessitates of updating the 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] to describe that the intent driven MnS producer, if necessary, can interact with MnS producers for ML model lifecycle management in both intent pre-evaluation phase and intent fulfilment phase, with reference to 3GPP TS 28.105 [10].
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.15.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| The potential solution proposed in clause 4.15.3.1 satisfies the requirement identified in clause 4.15.2. The solution does not require updates to the NRM and/or interfaces, only describing the possible interactions between intent-driven MnS producer and MnS producer for ML model lifecycle management in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], and hence, it is a feasible solution.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.16 Use case #16: Investigation on the applicability and potential impacts to support natural language intents translation
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.16.1 Description
| In TR 28.914 [9], clause 5.6 described the use case for investigating potential impacts to support natural language intents translation. It also states that there are some use cases where the use of natural language for intent expression would be preferred. For example, on the human-machine interface presenting and expressing intent using natural language can lead to a more intuitive experience for human users. A concrete example of natural language RAN ES intent can be "Reduce 10% RAN energy consumption without impact on user experience for Region X". The use case also described that if an intent interpreter is introduced to process intents described in natural language, it is necessary to clarify its position within the existing intent management framework, especially its relationship with the MnS consumer.
Scenario#1: Intent Interpreter as a separate function outside the intent handling function. In this scenario, Intent interpreter receive the natural language intent and translate it into a formal intent (the formal intent contains the attributes and corresponding values to enable the intent handling function to decide the actions to fulfil the intent expectation) according to intent model defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] and consume the 3GPP Intent driven MnS with formal intent model provided by intent handling function.
Figure 4.16-1 Deployment scnenario#1: Intent Interpreter as a separate function outside the intent handling function.
Scenario#2: Intent Interpreter is a function integrated in intent handling function. In this scenario, Intent Interpreter receives the natural language intent from consumer and translates it into detailed actions to be executed to fulfil the intent.
Based on above two deployment scenarios, this study can investigate whether there is a need for a potential solution to enhance the intent-driven management service to support natural language.
Figure 4.16-2 Deployment scnenario#2: Intent Interpreter is a function integrated in intent handling function.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.17 Use case #17: Enhancement of core network and service delivering and assurance scenarios
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.17.1 Description
| This use case proposes to add the scenarios on core network and service delivering and assurance to support the SLA of core network services. In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing use case and requirements for intent containing an expectation for 5GC network is described in clause 5.1.8, enabling MnS consumers to express intentions for 5GC network delivery (e.g., deploying 5GC sub-networks in specified areas) and performance assurance (e.g., maximum number of PDU sessions, number of registered users). Additionally, the 5GC Network Expectation defined in Clause 6.2.2.1.4 covers basic parameters like NF type, location, PLMN, and TAI. However, the existing capabilities fail to meet the following service experience--specific requirements:
- MnS consumer expresses core network SLA-level latency assurance expectation for specific service flows.
- MnS consumer expresses the preference on NF selection (e.g., UPF) and binding expectation for core network services.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.17.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-IDMS_CNServiceIntent-1: The intent driven MnS producer for core network service should have capabilities enabling the MnS consumer to express service latency requirements.
REQ-IDMS_CNServiceIntent-2: The intent driven MnS producer for core network service should have capabilities enabling the MnS consumer to express the preference on NF selection (e.g., UPF).
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.17.3 Potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.17.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.18 Use case #18: The relation and the interactions between intent handling function and NDTFunction
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.18.1 Description
| This use case proposes a scenario where intent-driven management services (IDMS) are enabled through the Network Digital Twin (NDT). A Network Digital Twin, as referenced in 3GPP TS 28.561 [12], is used as a replica of a mobile network, in order to learn how an actual mobile network would behave in certain scenarios, without causing any impacts to the real network. This capability is crucial for enabling intent handling function to validate intent feasibility and explore the best values for corresponding targets.
For example, during the pre-evaluation phase, as specified in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], when received an intent from the MnS consumer, the intent handling function can invoke NDT's simulation capabilities to perform an intent feasibility check or explore best values for intent targets, validating the impact of these intents. This helps validate whether an intent (e.g., "assuring 500 concurrent UEs in a stadium during a concert") can be fulfilled before initiating intent fulfilment or explore the best values for intent targets within the optimal network parameters (e.g., adjusting UE group priorities to avoid resource conflicts) in the NDT.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.18.2 Potential requirements
| REQ-Intent_NDT-1: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to interact with NDTFunction to validate the feasibility of intents or explore the best values of intent targets in intent pre-evaluation phase.
REQ-Intent_NDT-2: The intent driven MnS producer should have the capability to allow MnS consumer to obtain the information of NDTFunctions as enabler information used for intent feasibility check and intent exploration.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.18.3 Potential solutions
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.18.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| TBD
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.19 Use case #19: Enhancement of radio service scenarios for service protection
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.19.1 Description
| In 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the existing use case and requirements for intent containing an expectation for delivering a radio service is described in clause 5.1.2. The RadioServiceExpectation is defined to represent MnS consumer's expectations for radio service delivering and assurance in the specified area. However, current definitions do not provide means for expressing service-related protection expectations, i.e., requirements related to the level of protection or security controls to be applied to the managed service or resources.
NOTE: Even though this use case proposes to enhance the Radio Service scenario in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1], the service-related protection expectations are scenario-agnostic and could be applicable to other use cases.
Service protection in this context refers to the set of security mechanisms (e.g., access control, traffic filtering, traffic encryption, traffic integrity) that aim to prevent malicious or unauthorized access to the different attack surfaces exposed by managed services or resources.
Clause 5 of TS 33.501 [13] lists the security requirements and features for 5G, which cover different service-related protection aspects, e.g., integrity protection, confidentiality protection, replay protection, privacy protection, etc.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.20 Use case #20: New deployment scenario for Intent Handling Function at ManagedElement
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.20.1 Description
| This task investigates the need for a new deployment scenario for IHF at ManagedElement layer.
Discussion to date has not identified the need for such a scenario in 5GA. As such, the topic concludes with no potential requirements nor potential solutions proposed in this study.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.20.2 Potential requirements
| FFS
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.20.3 Potential solutions
| FFS
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 4.20.4 Evaluation of potential solutions
| Not applicable.
|
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
| |
bbd9841f4f65b6569258419594b8dc01 | 28.881 | 5.1 Use case #1: Enhancement of radio service delivering and assurance scenarios
| The use case of enhancement of radio service delivering and assurance scenarios is introduced in clause 4.1 and following management capabilities are identified:
- MnS consumer expresses the radio service delivering and assurance intent expectation with service reliability information.
- MnS consumer expresses the radio service delivering and assurance intent expectation for a specified area described in the form of civic location.
- MnS consumer expresses the radio service delivering and assurance expectation for a specified assurance time duration.
It is recommended to enhance the RadiServiceExpectation defined in 3GPP TS 28.312 [1] to support above identified management capabilities:
- Add "ReliabilityTarget " as the ExpectationTarget.
- Add "CivicAreaContext" as the ObjectContext, which support both civic address and location label.
- Add "AssuranceDurationContext" as the ExpectationContext.
The detailed solution in clause 4.1.3 is used as baseline for normative work.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.