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

While I have followed some of the various discussions here over the past
decades, I am not sure whether my 2 cents on this subject  is appropriate or
not. However, I have done quite a bit of research, system design and
implementation  synonymous with  "intent" intent over this period of time
and feel compelled to comment.  

My perspective is that intent is application/domain specific and can only be
abstracted from a knowledgebase specific to that application/domain. This
abstraction should be formal and not fluff. 

As such, I feel this document just further muddies the waters with
unnecessary and arbitrary new definitions and  I would not promote it
further.

Branislav

-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:58 PM
To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org; nmrg@irtf.org
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 <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org; nmrg@irtf.org
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
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
nmrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
nmrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg