Subject: Re: [nmrg] New Version Notification for draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-03.txt

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:54:05 +0800

Hi,
 
As all of you who attended the NMRG call this week know, the conclusion of the discussion was the recommendation from the chairs to publish updated version of the draft and to allow for 2-3 weeks for any additional comments before requesting approval to be adopted as a RG draft. 
 
We’ve just uploaded to -03 version of intent classification draft according to comments in the list and offline discussions. 
 
Updates from previous version from November:
1.                  1. Addressed comments from Laurent, Jerome and Jurgen that the value of the document and the classification tables are not clearly explained. Addressed by updating the introduction section and discussions on the mailing list
2.                    2.Addressed comment from Jurgen about alignment with the draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03. Addressed by updating the draft and referring in the Introduction to [CLEMM] and explaining what the scope of each draft.
3.                    3.Addressed comment from Jurgen to clarify if this is a survey. Addressed by replying on the mailing list that it is not meant to be a survey.
4.                    4.Addressed comments from Jerome and Laurent about presenting intent classification methodology. Addressed by adding  new sub-sections 5.1 and 5.2.
5.                    5.Addressed comment from Natale Bob that ut is unclear what the purpose is of the policy continuum section. Addressed by removing the section in the draft.
6.                    6.Addressed comment from Yehia Elkhatib that it is unclear what the differenece between intent and policy is. Addressed by updating the Introduction and referencing [CLEMM] draft that describes the difference between service, policy and intent. As well, we updated section 4 and sub-sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5. and 4.6 by making them intent and not policy focused.
7.                    7.Addressed comment by Branislav Meandzija that intent abstraction should be formal.  Addressed by explaining in the Introduction the purpose of this draft and that it is not planned to be a formal definition of intent.
8.                    8.Addressed comment from Jerome that the document could have some concrete examples of intents from different perspectives. Addressed by adding example to the tables in sections 5.3.1, 5.4.1 and 5.5.1.
9.                    9.Updated contributors.
10.                10.Fixed document format and typos.
 
Your comments and contributions are welcome! 

Best Regards,
Chen Li

李  晨  Li Chen
中国电信战略与创新研究院 战略与规划研究所 网络规划中心
电话：010-50902891/18910853955
邮箱：[email-masked]/[email-masked]
只为成功找方法，不为失败找借口
==============================
Chen  Li
Network Evolution and Planning Center
Network Technology & Planning Department
Email：[email-masked] /[email-masked]
Tel: +86-10-50902891
Mobile: +86-18910853955