Subject: [nmrg] draft-li-nmrg-intent-classification-03

From: Olga Havel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:32:36 +0000

Hi,

We addressed the comments received from the community about our Intent Classification Draft v2, we discussed them via NMRG mailing list and later created Intent Classification v3 draft. We want to share the updated draft with community and get more feedback (especially from those comment authors that have not given their feedback yet), before submitting for approval. We would appreciate any comments/feedback.

The following 2 additional files are also attached:

-        comments summary table that we already shared, updated with how we addressed the comments

-        proposed intent classification methodology overview

In summary, we addressed the following comments in the v3:

Comment 1:. Jurgen, Jerome, Laurent: The value of the document and the tables not clearly explained.

*         Addressed by updating the introduction section in draft-li-intent-classifciation-03 that answers the question, also discussed on the mailing list and shared the new introduction for comments on the mailing list.

*         Waiting on Jerome and Laurent to feedback

Comment 2. Jurgen: Alignment with the draft-clemm-nmrg-dist-intent-03

*         Addressed by updating draft-li-intent-classification-03 and referring in the Introduction to [CLEMM] and explaining what the scope of each draft is and sharing on the mailing list.

Comment 3. Jurgen: Is this supposed to be survey

*         Addressed by answering in the email that it is not.

Comment 4. Jurgen: Unclear what is the role of the big tables with empty cells in Section 5.

*         Addressed by updating the Introduction in the draft-li-intent-classifciation-03 and also communicating on the mailing list. Explained they were added in the last version as a result of the comments on the previous version of the draft.

Comment 5. Jerome, Laurent: Methodology

*         Addressed by adding a new sub-section 5.1. Attached is the PPT with proposed Methodology.

*         Waiting on Jerome and Laurent to feedback / Also please review the attached Methodology PPT

Comment 6. Natale Bob: Policy Continuum Section purpose

*         Addressed by removing the section in draft-li-intent-classifciation-03.

Comment 7. Yehia Elkhatib: Unclear difference between intent and policy

*         Addressed in the Introduction by referencing [CLEMM] that describes the difference between service, policy and intent.

*         Addressed by updating section 4 and sub-sections 4.4, 4.5. and 4.6 and making them intent and not policy focused.

Comment 8. Branislav Meandzija: 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.

Comment 9. Jerome: 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.

Best Regards,
Olga