Re: [nmrg] New Version Notification for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt

[Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]>]

So how does this interact with draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03?

I personally find the big tables confusing and not very helpful to
understand the concepts. But perhaps my problem is not classification
of intent but looking for a good and concise definition of what is
intent, what is not intent, how intent relates to prior art on
(declarative) policy languages (or is intent just a new name?)  In
that direction, I find draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03 clearer and
more useful.

/js

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 04:51:50PM +0000, Olga Havel wrote:
> Hi,
> As some of you remember, we asked during the Singapore meeting for adoption of draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02 as an RG draft. After voting, all of those who read it agreed that the draft is very useful. You also mentioned that we need to potentially address some additional review comments. Could everyone who has any comments please share them with us. Laurent, Jerome, could you please share your comments as well? Also, please let us know what comments you think must be addressed in for v2 to be adopted, versus what comments we can address in v3, currently planned for March/April.
> Best Regards,
> Olga
> 
> From: Olga Havel
> Sent: Monday 18 November 2019 14:23
> To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> We've just uploaded 02 version of intent classification draft (https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02.txt) according to the comments in the list and offline discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> Updates from previous version from July:
> 1.                   Addressed Brain's comments about "Adding solid use cases". Addressed by adding use cases in section 3.2.
> 2.                   Addressed Diego's comments about "Provide a framework for further intent evolution".  Addressed by adding a new draft: draft-sun-nmrg-intent-framework-00
> 3.                   Addressed Laurent's comments "Suggest to use parameter/classification table to do classification". Addressed by adding the whole Section 5 with classification tables for Carrier, DC and Enterprise.
> 4.                   Addressed comments from Ericsson "Classify based on granularity is not accurate, may change granularity to abstraction of service description". Addressed by changing Section 4.2 from Granularity Section to Feedback Section and adding column Abstraction to the classification table.
> 5.                   Chapters 5 and 6 became 6 and 7, as a result of adding new chapter 5
> 6.                   Section 7: Added explanation about AI related content
> 7.                   Moved the sections of Policy Continuum and AI after the section for Intent Classification Table
> 8.                   Updated contributors
> 9.                   Fixed document format and typos
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments and contributions are welcome!.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Olga

> _______________________________________________
> 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/>