NAF Framework — Deep Dive (Parts 1 & 2)#

Christian Adell & Damien Garros · CoreWeave / NAF

• Why: The shared vocabulary the rest of the conference keeps mapping to (LINX explicitly, CoreWeave's monitoring talk, the anti-patterns talk). For a PM, it's a vendor-neutral yardstick to assess automation claims against.
• What: A tool-agnostic decomposition of any automation system into functional blocks — Intent, Orchestration, Executor, Collector, Observability, Presentation, Infrastructure — each with MUST/SHOULD/MAY capabilities, boundaries, and responsibilities. Explicitly not a protocol or reference architecture; any tool can map to one or more blocks, and you implement only what your use case needs.
• How: Worked example: deploy a subnet across 50 mixed-vendor NETCONF branch sites — Infrahub (intent) → AAP (orchestration) → Ansible (executor via NETCONF) → gNMIc/SuzieQ/Kentik (collection) → Prometheus/SuzieQ/Kentik (drift detection) → orchestrated re-run on the failing site → Grafana compliance dashboard, closing a 5→6→3→4→5 remediation loop.
• Where applicable: Generally applicable as a vocabulary and scoping tool; no ordering imposed and no requirement for completeness. Useful as the mental model that ties together the LINX, DE-CIX and Colt architectures in this digest.