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

[Olga Havel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We agreed the 2 drafts with chairs at the previous meetings. We did not have any review comments about the 2 drafts overlapping during the previous reviews or meetings, it seemed to be clear. But it may be because of some things discussed at meetings have not been documented in the drafts, so we need to address this - either in this version or version 03. And I believe this may be applicable to both drafts.

This draft is about classification of intents based on different users of the network, from their perspective. This draft tries to answer what intent types are needed for different users of the network, and it takes the approach of first identifying solutions, intent users and intent types and categories of intents that these users may need. This is from the abstract:

"This document discusses what intent means to different stakeholders,  describes different ways to classify intent, and an associated  taxonomy of this classification. This is a foundation for discussion of intent related topics."

Also:
"Therefore, it is important to start a discussion in the industry about what intent is for different solutions and intent users. It is also imperative to try to propose some intent categories / classifications that could be understood by a wider audience. This would help us define intent interfaces, DSLs and models."

In regards to the tables, I already mentioned in the previous email on 28/11/2019, we added them as chairs considered them to be more useful than text for classification purposes and I do agree fully. This was the main Laurent's comment about the previous version of the draft. They can be used for different purposes by the group, for example:
- PoCs/ Demos /Research may fill in the empty cells to identify what their scope is
- Some future drafts (e.g. intent model/DSL/API) may fill in the empty cells to identify their scope or priorities
- discuss if some things should be considered intents or not (e.g.  strategy intents, different opinions) and agree to remove them
- identify some new intent types/ categories currently not identified
- ensure that whatever intent definition is agreed (in draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03) is comprehensive enough to address all solutions and users of network and intent types they require from the network to support (draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02).

I agree completely that we should be fully aligned and I propose that the further alignment could be done after we adopt both drafts. We are talking here about versions 02/03, so we obviously need more work on either. It would be better to use the latest versions for further alignment, as there were lots of changes done and we addressed lots of comments from the community.

Best Regards,
Olga


-----Original Message-----
From: nmrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
Sent: Wednesday 4 December 2019 21:25
To: Jérôme François <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] Adoption call for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-02

I am still not sure what the value of this document is. What is the insight that these big tables deliver? How do they help doing ultimately better work in the IETF?

I am sure I will get some answer quickly from the authors but what I am saying is that I prefer to see the value of this document very clearly explained in the document before adopting it. Note that I also expect that this document would align with the other document defining intent concepts and terminology. Perhaps this is more intended like a survey paper but then it has gone a bit in the wrong direction since a decent survey would explain how intent is defined and used in concrete projects (hint: lots of concrete descriptions and references) and then you would classify things. But right now, we have big tables with empty cells or cells with text that seems to come from rather unknown sources.

For the above reasons, I do not support adoption at this point in time.

/js

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:24:44PM +0100, Jérôme François wrote:
> 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]
> 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/>

_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg