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

Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <olga.havel@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4412E1209C5; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:12:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O91b8Jv0oNS2; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9CC1209E3; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CE1CC622060830FBB6D9; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:12:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:12:10 +0000
Received: from fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.55) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:12:10 +0100
Received: from fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.112.184]) by fraeml706-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.112.184]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:12:09 +0100
From: Olga Havel <olga.havel@huawei.com>
To: Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
CC: "nmrg-chairs@irtf.org" <nmrg-chairs@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
Thread-Index: AQHVqshZhkKpPTEjlUC9PG9gJ0IhHae8kGsAgAGXiaA=
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:12:09 +0000
Message-ID: <405221e6c9854a33900959812a5577f1@huawei.com>
References: <d2f3bcea-ac67-0350-259e-fa68eeeee889@inria.fr> <9027c218-5312-daea-be90-2ad9b2991d54@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <9027c218-5312-daea-be90-2ad9b2991d54@inria.fr>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.206.138.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/CcOkOxn5nQJ5frotV7Gd2sOklNQ>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:12:17 -0000

Hi Jerome,

Thank you very much for your comments. I think my reply to Laurent also applies here, as your comment is similar. I do believe that we should agree the overall methodology for the group that would drive not just intent classification, but also intent and IBN system definition, intent architecture, etc. Nevertheless, in the meantime I would like to understand what change in our draft would be sufficient at this stage to approve the draft. Would adding a 'Classification Methodology' section at the beginning of the draft and moving tables to the addendum be sufficient change to address your comments?

Best Regards,
Olga  

-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Jérôme François
Sent: Monday 16 December 2019 10:27
To: nmrg@irtf.org
Cc: nmrg-chairs@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02

Dear all,

Speaking as an individual.

It is clearly valuable to have some concrete examples of intents from different perspectives. It will help the global understanding of IBN but I have the same concerns as others expressed in the mailing list. It is unclear what are the criteria of classification and why those criteria have been selected and how much representative they are.
As an intent definition can come from different perspectives (technical or business for instance), a unique methodology for classification should be proposed to integrate all of them. It will be a good value for such a document. Using then examples to validate the classification methodology should be more documented with references in my opinion.

Best regards
jerome


Le 04/12/2019 à 18:24, Jérôme François a écrit :
> 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