Subject: [nmrg] Intent Classification Draft - Comments Mehdi Bezahaf of Complexity 0 and 1 addressed

From: Adriana Olariu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:22:00 +0000

Dear Mehdi,

Thank you again for your comments. As mentioned in a previous email, Olga and myself have addressed your comments of complexity 0 and complexity 1 in version 01 of the draft.
You can find in Github the TXT version of the draft (https://github.com/irtf-nmrg/nmrg-ibn-intent-classification/blob/01/draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification-01.txt), and attached to this email is the WORD DOC version.
In the table below, in the last column, there is a note on how these comment have been addressed in the latest version of the draft. Please let us know if they have been addressed to your satisfaction.

Best regards,
Olga and Adriana

Author

Affiliation

High-level comment

Section

Complexity

Editor

Status

How it was addressed

1

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Consistent use of words.

ALL

0

Huawei

Completed

As per draft-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions, we can use the following: life-cycle, end-users in the document.
For the rest of similar workds we used: intent-driven (as per SLA-driven in draft), task-based.

2

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Missing acronyms.

2

0

Huawei

Completed

Updated the list of acronyns in section 3  (now section 3, after adding section 2 with Keywords).

3

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Clarify intent vs. policy confusion.

3

1

Huawei

Completed

Updated as suggested by Yehia "   An intent is mistaken by many to be just a synonym for policy.
   While it is easier for those familiar with different standards to   understand what service, CFS, RFS, resource, policy continuum, ECA  policy, declarative policy, abstract policy or intent policy is, it   may be more difficult for the wider audience. Furthermore, those  familiar with policies understand the difference between a business,   intent, declarative, imperative, and ECA policy."

4

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

The authors sees the listed intent solutions more as scenarios or contexts

3

1

Huawei

Completed

This has been addressed through email communication.

5

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Clarify whether intent solutions and intents users are covering all posibilities or are just examples/starting point.

3

1

Huawei

Completed

The following sentence has been added after the table in updated section 4.2: "These intent solutions and intent users represent a starting point for the classification and are expendable through the methodology  presented in Section 5.1."

6

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

User type and context alone does not define the intent type.

3

3

Pedro

7

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Section 3.1 and 3.2 are related. Picking actor, context and use-case presents a clear definition of an intent.

3

2

Pedro

8

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Title of section 3.3 title mentioning "problems" could be replaced with "benefits" or "improvements"

3

2

Pedro

9

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Methodology picture is confusing and needs extended description on some of the entities.

5

3

Huawei

10

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Consistency between intent user types throughout the document.

5

2

China Telecom

11

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Duplicat entries in the table

5

0

Huawei

Completed

Fixed table in section 6.3.1  Removed two entries. Section numbering changed due to adding a new section 2 with Keywords.

12

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

Consistency between intent  types throughout the document.

5

2

China Telecom

13

Mehdi Bezahaf

Lancaster University

AI is out of scope for intent classification topic.

6

3

China Telecom