Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02

[Olga Havel <[e-mail]>]

Hi BobN,

Thank you very much for your comments, I absolutely agree with you about it all. But I do think that we need to have additional drafts to address some of the comments you have and that maybe not all of them are in the scope of this draft. The scope of this draft is intent classification - from the perspective of different solutions and intent users, where intent user is any human interacting with the network (existing network and future autonomous network). I think this draft should be foundation for discussion of intent related topics and other drafts that would be coming - intent engine architecture (including translation, layering) and intent DSLs.

- Policy Continuum.  I agree but we intentionally reduced it in order to focus this draft on intent classification from the solution and user perspective, for both technical & non-technical user, without need to understand the black box and layering. This draft is the starting point to continue working on formal definitions (intents, APIs, DSLs) & architecture. I do believe we need to start working on additional drafts that would address other aspects and the work on Policy Continuum will be the core input in these drafts. 

- Translation of policies, intent-based policy expression, operation of Policy Continuum
[Olga] This draft did not look at translation, intent DSLs / models / APIs and is focused on identifying solutions, users and intent types. I think your comments are very valuable and it is definitely something we have to focus in other drafts that would look at intent architecture and intent models / DSLs.  There is already some work started on the architecture draft.

I do believe the value of this draft and the adoption of version 02 will be continued discussion and hopefully final agreement in the group about how to classify intents, but starting from business / intent user - what is needed by different solutions & different intent users in those solutions. I do not think version 02 means that we agreed about all categories and classification, it means we are continuing discussion. 

Best Regards,
Olga

-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
Sent: Thursday 5 December 2019 06:58
To: Jérôme François <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [EXT] Re: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
Importance: Low

I would like to add that the extremely brief section on the Policy Continuum in the draft seems superfluous in light of its brevity and consequent over-simplification. (If John Strassner feels otherwise, then please ignore my comments here!)

While the existing text is a reasonable facsimile of early descriptions of the Policy Continuum, as thought developed the concept matured: E.g., "The Policy Continuum - Policy authoring and conflict analysis" (2008), http://brendanjennings.net/papers/2008_COMCOM_SDavy_et_al_published.pdf, esp. sec. 2.1.4, but most of the rest of the paper is essential to a useful level of understanding. 

Alas, at some point the Policy Continuum concept seems to have fallen relatively dormant. Regardless, wrt the discussion topic at hand, I believe that several points must be considered:

- Non-person entity "actors" as policy authors will be essential to translation of policy expressions in the Intent-based operating model.
- It is (and always has been) the translation of policies across levels. The translation activity is what makes the model a continuum as opposed to (only) a set of interworking differentiated layers.
- Applying Intent-based policy expression adds a distinct dimension to operation of the Policy Continuum ... this new dimension is compatible with existing common understanding of the Policy Continuum but introduces additional translations at some layers.

So, I think it's necessary to cover the Policy Continuum (by whatever name might be preferable today, if that term is out of vogue) in an explanation of Intent-based policy implementation. I am not sure it belongs in a document defining Intent classification. And it almost certainly does not fit into this particular draft in its present form. I do see the connection you are presumably making with your Intent User and Intent Type breakouts and the Policy Continuum but (to coin a phrase?) it's "too little too early" to add any real value.

FWIW (from a lurker),
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Jérôme François <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [EXT] Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02

I am still not sure what the value of this document is. What is the insight that these big tables deliver? How do they help doing ultimately better work in the IETF?

I am sure I will get some answer quickly from the authors but what I am saying is that I prefer to see the value of this document very clearly explained in the document before adopting it. Note that I also expect that this document would align with the other document defining intent concepts and terminology. Perhaps this is more intended like a survey paper but then it has gone a bit in the wrong direction since a decent survey would explain how intent is defined and used in concrete projects (hint: lots of concrete descriptions and references) and then you would classify things. But right now, we have big tables with empty cells or cells with text that seems to come from rather unknown sources.

For the above reasons, I do not support adoption at this point in time.

/js

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:24:44PM +0100, Jérôme François wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> We recently received an RG adoption request for
> draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
> (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt)
> 
> Please let us know if you support the work becoming a RG document or 
> if you think it should not be adopted. In all cases, provide detailed 
> comments to support your opinion and send them on the mailing list.
> 
> This call for adoption is open for two weeks and ends up on 19 December 2019.
> 
> The procedure for RG document adoption and important criteria are 
> detailed
> here: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/CVEyLUvfxJk1Ud5WdM9Y5LGvQmU
> 
> Best regards
> NMRG chairs
> Laurent & Jérôme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg