Re: [nmrg] Review comments on "draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05"

[Olga Havel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks again for your review and sorry for the delay. Dec/Jan was very busy with all annual leaves and end of the year / beginning of the year activities. We are currently updating the document based on your comments and will share the v06 of the document this week. Here are some replies to your comments and actions, please let us know if we are on the right track.

In summary, our understanding is that the following are your major comments, please see the replies to your email in bold dark blue:
-              Clarification on the structure of the document and the purpose of Sections 4 and 5
-              Update 4.1 and 4.3 to make it more brief
-              Clarify 5.1 and 5.7
-              Editorial comments

Best Regards,
Olga

From: JEF [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday 7 December 2021 01:59
To: Colin Perkins <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; nmrg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; lichen.bri <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Olga Havel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Adriana Olariu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; pedro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; jcnobre <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; diego.r.lopez <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Internet Research Steering Group <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Review comments on "draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05"


Hi,
I reviewed the draft as a member of IRSG, and below are my comments.
1. It seems that the section 6 is the main contribution from this document, which provides a methodology for classification (in figure 1) , an intent taxonomy (figure 2) and detailed classifications with examples for 3 “solutions” (Carrier, Data Centre, Enterprise networks). This part is written in a very clear way and the content is also helpful at least to me. If this is the main objective of the document, it is achieved very well. Thanks to the authors!
<Olga> Thanks to you for reviewing it in the name of all authors!!
2. But the abstract does't emphasize or focus on this main contribution in my reading, and the sections before Section 6 created some confusion to me. My general feeling after reading the whole document was: why not show me the Section 6 directly :)
When I read it back again, I think maybe the confusion comes from the positioning of section 4 and section 5. Section 4 has a title “abstract intent requirement” and section 5: “functional characteristics and behaviour”.  When I read them at the first time, I thought these two sections aimed to discuss some advanced technical designs in an Intent-based system.
Only after reading Section 6, I realised that the discussion in Section 4 and 5 is following the sequence of steps in figure 1 in Section 6: “intent solution(4.2)”, “intent user types(4.2 and 5.2)", "type of intent(4.4)”, “intent scope(5.3)”, network intent scope(5.4), different intent abstraction(5.5), intent life-cycle(5.6), etc.  So maybe it confused me because of the existing of the other subsections: 4.1(what is intent), 4.3(benefit of intents), 5.1(abstracting intent operation), 5.7(autonomous driving levels).
This can be just my personal feeling, maybe it is not necessary to significantly change the structure of this document. But I can't help thinking that, if the main purpose of these two sections are preparing the readers for section 6 (otherwise the focus of this document is lost), maybe they can be organised in a more straightforward way.
<Olga> Our goal was to have Sections 4 and 5 that introduce the intent concepts [with ref to Clemm] and specify some high level requirements for intent classification and characteristics. Section 6 was added during the later reviews to add methodology and taxonomy in tabular format, based on concepts, requirements and expected intent characteristics introduced in the previous Sections. The document structure is the result of many review iterations and we hope to avoid any major document structural changes at this stage. In short, the  Sections 4 and 5 are the intro and requirements about why we came up with taxonomy in 6.

3. The discussion in 4.1(what is intent), 4.3(benefit of intents) can be more brief. Well, frankly speaking, I personally think they are not necessary in this document. These two issues are "non-trivial", I feel any detailed discussion in this document may create inconsistence with the [Clemm] (the concept&definition document) now or in future versions. We'd better lead the readers to [Clemm]  if they are serious about these two issues.
<OH> We propose to make the Sections more brief as you suggest. We would reduce or delete second and fourth paragraph in section 4.1 (what is intent) and will just refer to [Clemm]  and say that classification is needed on top of that. The focus of 4.3 was to give some examples and show that although some requirements for intent would benefit all types of stakeholders, individual stakeholders also have more specific requirements. This was the introduction in why we need to classify based on different user types, and we used some examples for that purpose. We added examples as requested during reviews. But we will review again and make it more brief, reduce the number of examples.
4. The subsection 5.1 (abstracting intent operation): I have no technical comments on the content, but it has no connection to the sections before and doesn't contribute to the section 6?
<OH> We propose to add the statement at the end of the section: “Although different intent categories share the same abstracted intent model, each category will have its own specific context, capabilities and constraints.
5. The subsection 5.7(autonomous driving levels) seems strange to me. Why does it belong to the section 5 “functional characteristics and behaviour"?
<OH> Depending on the Autonomous Network Level of the overall solution (TMF AN Levels), we may have different intent requirements and types. This was added in the later versions based on some review comments and it replaced another section that was talking about AI in general. Here we are describing how intent may differ at different stages of Autonomous Network evolution, depending how advanced the solution is.
6. Some more editorial comments:
(1) The "abstract": "intent management system” should be kept consistent with [clemm]: intent-based management system?
(2) page 2: the expire time is not correct, should be "May 10, 2022"?
(3) page3, page 49: should “table of contents” and “author’s addresses” start a new page? I see many drafts don't.
(4) page4 (introduction): last paragraph should be placed at the end of the “abstract”, especially the last sentence: “published for informational purposes”? And, should it be expressed as "The document is sponsored under the IRTF and is not issued by the IETF and is not an IETF standard"?
(5) “reference”: the order of references should not be random.
(6) “reference”: if this document is informational, shall all the references to be “informative references”? no “normative references”?
(7)  inconsistence of terms:  “Intent-driven networks” at the beginning of section 1, "Intent-based networking" at the beginning of subsection 1.
(8) the second paragraph on page 5: “The document describes…”, means “This document”? The 3rd paragraph on page 5: “IEEE-CNOM”, should have a full name or a link?
(9) subsection 4.4, the format of “types” is unclear, what’s the relationship between those “for” and the type above it. The format implies that each “for” is a sub-type (low level types) in my view. But under the last item “intents that affect other..”, there are some explanations.
(10) page 14: there is “for device replacements”. So I guess “for server replacements”, should be “for service replacements”? “server” is a type of “device”.
(11) page 21: item 5, there is two “then”.
<OH> Thank you so much for the editorial comments, we will make updates according to your comments.
Best,
Jeffrey







Original

From:"Colin Perkins"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;

Date:2021/12/7 3:58

To:"iMac"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;

CC:"Internet Research Steering Group"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;

Subject:Re: Comments on  "draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05"

Hi Jeffrey,
Thank you for the review! Could you please also send your review comments to the document authors and NMRG mailing list?
Regards,
Colin

On 4 Dec 2021, at 15:52, JEF <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi IRSG and Colin,
Below are my comments on this draft.
1. It seems that the section 6 is the main contribution from this document, which provides a methodology for classification (in figure 1) , an intent taxonomy (figure 2) and detailed classifications with examples for 3 “solutions” (Carrier, Data Centre, Enterprise networks). This part is written in a very clear way and the content is also helpful at least to me. If this is the main objective of the document, it is achieved very well. Thanks to the authors!
2. But the abstract does't emphasize or focus on this main contribution in my reading, and the sections before Section 6 created some confusion to me. My general feeling after reading the whole document was: why not show me the Section 6 directly :)
When I read it back again, I think maybe the confusion comes from the positioning of section 4 and section 5. Section 4 has a title “abstract intent requirement” and section 5: “functional characteristics and behaviour”.  When I read them at the first time, I thought these two sections aimed to discuss some advanced technical designs in an Intent-based system.
Only after reading Section 6, I realised that the discussion in Section 4 and 5 is following the sequence of steps in figure 1 in Section 6: “intent solution(4.2)”, “intent user types(4.2 and 5.2)", "type of intent(4.4)”, “intent scope(5.3)”, network intent scope(5.4), different intent abstraction(5.5), intent life-cycle(5.6), etc.  So maybe it confused me because of the existing of the other subsections: 4.1(what is intent), 4.3(benefit of intents), 5.1(abstracting intent operation), 5.7(autonomous driving levels).
This can be just my personal feeling, maybe it is not necessary to significantly change the structure of this document. But I can't help thinking that, if the main purpose of these two sections are preparing the readers for section 6 (otherwise the focus of this document is lost), maybe they can be organised in a more straightforward way.
3. The discussion in 4.1(what is intent), 4.3(benefit of intents) can be more brief. Well, frankly speaking, I personally think they are not necessary in this document. These two issues are "non-trivial", I feel any detailed discussion in this document may create inconsistence with the [Clemm] (the concept&definition document) now or in future versions. We'd better lead the readers to [Clemm]  if they are serious about these two issues.
4. The subsection 5.1 (abstracting intent operation): I have no technical comments on the content, but it has no connection to the sections before and doesn't contribute to the section 6?
5. The subsection 5.7(autonomous driving levels) seems strange to me. Why does it belong to the section 5 “functional characteristics and behaviour"?
6. Some more editorial comments:
(1) The "abstract": "intent management system” should be kept consistent with [clemm]: intent-based management system?
(2) page 2: the expire time is not correct, should be "May 10, 2022"?
(3) page3, page 49: should “table of contents” and “author’s addresses” start a new page? I see many drafts don't.
(4) page4 (introduction): last paragraph should be placed at the end of the “abstract”, especially the last sentence: “published for informational purposes”? And, should it be expressed as "The document is sponsored under the IRTF and is not issued by the IETF and is not an IETF standard"?
(5) “reference”: the order of references should not be random.
(6) “reference”: if this document is informational, shall all the references to be “informative references”? no “normative references”?
(7)  inconsistence of terms:  “Intent-driven networks” at the beginning of section 1, "Intent-based networking" at the beginning of subsection 1.
(8) the second paragraph on page 5: “The document describes…”, means “This document”? The 3rd paragraph on page 5: “IEEE-CNOM”, should have a full name or a link?
(9) subsection 4.4, the format of “types” is unclear, what’s the relationship between those “for” and the type above it. The format implies that each “for” is a sub-type (low level types) in my view. But under the last item “intents that affect other..”, there are some explanations.
(10) page 14: there is “for device replacements”. So I guess “for server replacements”, should be “for service replacements”? “server” is a type of “device”.
(11) page 21: item 5, there is two “then”.

Best,
Jeffrey










Original
From:"Colin Perkins"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;
Date:2021/12/2 6:51
To:"iMac"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;
CC:"Internet Research Steering Group"< [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >;
Subject:Re: [irsg] IRSG review requestdraft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05

Thank you, Jeffrey!
Colin


On 23 Nov 2021, at 14:32, JEF <[e-mail]<http://undefined/>> wrote:

Hi Colin,
I can review this draft. I'll try to complete it before the end of next week.
Best,
Jeffrey
------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Colin Perkins";<[e-mail]<http://undefined/>>;
Send time: Friday, Nov 19, 2021 8:34 PM
To: "Internet Research Steering Group"<[e-mail]<http://undefined/>>;
Subject:  [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05
IRSG members,

The NMRG has requested that draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-05 be considered for publication as an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we now need at least one IRSG member to volunteer to provide a detailed review of the draft, as follows:

> The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least one IRSG member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work forth must review the document and the RG's editorial process.
>
> IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. An important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from reviewers who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, assure the document will be accessible to those beyond the authoring research group. Also, reviewers should assess whether sufficient editorial and technical review has been conducted and the requirements of this process document, such as those described in IRTF-RFCs have been met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate citations to related research literature have been made.
>
> Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be sent to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. All IRSG review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not accept every comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to understand the comments and ensure that the RG considers them including adequate dialog between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. Reviews and their resolution should be entered into the tracker by the document shepherd.
>
> The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.

Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a review, and indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be able to complete it. The document shepherd write-up is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification/shepherdwriteup/<http://undefined/>

Thanks,
Colin