Re: [nmrg] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification

Hi,

This is a useful document. To be honest, I am not certain that the precise details in section 7.2 (Intent Taxonomy) through 7.5 will survive the test of time, but it is very good to see this level of detail.

In the Introduction:

> ...(by the Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and
> Approach Working Group [ANIMA]
...> IETF [ANIMA] defines intent as a declarative policy,

That is wrong. The reference is to an individual draft which has never been adopted by the ANIMA WG. The IETF has no definition of intent, and it is left for future work by the ANIMA charter. No problem referring to draft-du-anima-an-intent, but please do not refer to it as an IETF document. If you want to refer to ANIMA work in general, I suggest
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model, which is within a few weeks of being an RFC. It does have a short section on intent, marked as a future work item (and an informative reference to draft-du-).

Section 6.7. Hierarchy:

>    o Level 4 - Partial autonomous network: In a limited environment,
>       people do not need to participate in decision-making and adjust
>       themselves. - Intent based on limited AI
> 
>    o Level 5 - Autonomous network: In different network environments
>       and network conditions, the network can automatically adapt to and
>       adjust to meet people's intentions. - Intent based on AI

I think we generally say "autonomic network" not "autonomous network".

> 8. Security Considerations
> 
>    This document does not have any Security Considerations.

This surprises me. At the minimum, I suggest a pointer to the security considerations of [CLEMM].

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 12-Mar-21 20:31, Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> This is a gentle reminder that the RG last call for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification will conclude on March 16^th .
> 
>  
> 
> The feedback from the RG on the technical and editorial quality of the document is of high importance to decide about the next steps.
> 
>  
> 
> Simple statement like: "I have read the draft at different stages of its development, and believes it is in good shape to progress to IRSG review", are useful too.
> 
> Detailed review are most welcome too.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jérôme & Laurent
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <laurent.ciavaglia@nokia.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2021 17:43
> *To:* nmrg@irtf.org
> *Cc:* nmrg-chairs@irtf.org; draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RG Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification
> 
>  
> 
> Dear NMRG,
> 
>  
> 
> This email initiates a 3-weeks RG last call for the I-D "Intent Classification" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification/).
> 
>  
> 
> The intended status of the RFC is Informational.
> 
> The document shepherd is Laurent Ciavaglia.
> 
>  
> 
> For more details on the IRTF RFC publication process, please see: * https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/IRTF-RFCs
> 
>  
> 
> Please provide feedback on the technical and editorial quality of the document by *March 16^th , 2021.*
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jérôme and Laurent
> 
> NMRG chairs
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
> 