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

[Olga Havel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Laurent,

Thanks for your comments. Would something like this be better format to communicate our proposed taxonomy?

[cid:image001.jpg@01D5AF86.26216960]


But we can also use UML or knowledge graphs as well, the problem is IETF format.

In regards to methodology, I do believe we approached it top down (business driven, solutions, users, some requirements) in proposing the taxonomy. I do agree that having agreed methodology would be very useful. But I think it is not for taxonomy only. We should have overall business driven methodology that will drive intent & IBN system definition, taxonomy, ontologies & architecture. In fact, I do believe that work item 1 may be more suitable placeholder for methodology. And describe how other work items and drafts fit into this methodology. This would drive work item 2 (intent definition and IBN system definition is in), work item 3 (taxonomy and ontologies), work item 4 (architecture), etc.

And I would suggest that we ensure that all other drafts are aligned and iteratively updated. For intent classification draft, we can add this alignment as the highest priority for future work on 03 version.

Best Regards,
Olga


From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
Sent: Tuesday 10 December 2019 14:40
To: nmrg <[e-mail]>
Cc: nmrg-chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] Fw: Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02

Hello,

Speaking as an individual.

I think the work initiated with the document is useful.

As part of the criteria for adopting an individual document as a RG document, I'm looking for the scientific rigor and potential value/impact.
What I see missing in the current document is a more rigorous approach (methodology, criteria definition) to the classification work. Currently I see it more as a bottom-up exercise listing different intent user/application examples and trying to produce a classification out of it. I think this is a first step but not sufficient (cf. methodology).
An issue with the current content, as I understand it, is that it will be challenging to keep a consistent classification over time, or how sure (methodology again) are we that the current classification is robust enough and representative of the problem/solution space.

The work would gain a lot by considering (and documenting) a methodological approach and populating the classification based on it, instead of (only) from examples.

Concerning the addition of the tables: I suggested the creation of such table(s) in a specific context: mapping of the demos presented at the NMRG56 meeting in Roma, and with a specific purpose: exercise the classification (can the different demos aspects (actors, intents) map easily to the classification (or not, and derive conclusion from the exercise); a second purpose was to use the classification as a common tool to present the information of the demos, with the goal to have this published in the IBN resource hub, maintaining description of the various IBN demos and tools. If table(s) are to be kept in the draft, maybe worth to consider only selected examples and put them as annex.

Best regards, Laurent.


From: Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 13:52
To: nmrg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: nmrg-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Fw: Fw: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02


Hi, all,
I support the adoption of this work as a RG document.  Although Internet driven network has been an hot topic, but the concept of Intent itselft is a little abstract,different people have different understanding and expectation.  This document provides several dimensions to classify intents，which will make intent more specific and easy to implement in different scenarios.
Thanks
Chongfeng

From: Jérôme François<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2019-12-05 01:24
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02
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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg