Skip to main content

Intent Classification
RFC 9316


No Objection

Ari Keränen
Brian Trammell
Colin Perkins
David Oran
Mat Ford


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this draft ready for publication in the IRTF stream?"

Jianfei(Jeffrey) HE
Comment (2022-04-22 for -06) Not sent
I reviewed this draft and think it's ready for publication.
Melinda Shore
Comment (2022-04-12 for -06) Sent
I did the IRSG review and found this draft ready for publication.
Ari Keränen
No Objection
Brian Trammell
No Objection
Colin Perkins
No Objection
David Oran
No Objection
Laurent Ciavaglia
No Objection
Comment (2022-04-24 for -06) Not sent
As shepherd for this document, I think it is ready for publication.
Mat Ford
No Objection
Mirja Kühlewind
No Objection
Comment (2022-04-25 for -06) Sent
It seems to me that draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions should be a normative reference. Or actually it's not clear to me why these are split up into two different drafts anyway.
Spencer Dawkins
No Objection
Comment (2022-04-24 for -06) Sent
I like this document a lot. This isn't my area of expertise, but I did learn a lot from reading through it. 

I do have two questions, but they are absolutely comment-level questions. Just Do The Right Thing. 

* First, and this may be more of a question for Colin or the IRSG, but in this text

   The document represents the consensus of the RG. During the
   document's lifecycle it received many positive expressions of support
   and detailed reviews beyond the authors. Only in the last call period
   it received more than 12 positive expressions of support and more
   than 5 detailed reviews. It is published for informational purposes.

This is, of course, an IRTF-stream document, and Last Call is a well-defined IETF-stream thing with no obvious counterpart in 

IETF working groups often have "working group last call", and I think what you're talking about is “research group last call”, which is one of our states. 

Colin, et. al., does this matter?

Nit: I think I know what you mean with “Only in the last call period”, but that is ambiguous. I’d suggest dropping “Only”, because you’re describing what happened in the research group last call, right?.

Nit: I don’t remember seeing this level of detail about expressions of support in other IRTF stream documents, but I do find that useful - other reviewers may have different thoughts. 

* Second, when looking at these two sections,

10. Contributors

   The following people all contributed to creating this document:

   Xueyuan Sun, China Telecom
   Will (Shucheng) Liu, Huawei
   Ying Chen, China Unicom
   John Strassner, Huawei
   Weiping Xu, Huawei
   Richard Meade, Huawei

11. Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to Xueyuan Sun from China Telecom for significant
   contributions to this document, and to Will (Shucheng) Liu from
   Huawei for contributions and guidance.

   This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments and
   proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
   alphabetical order: Mehdi Bezahaf, Brian E Carpenter, Laurent
   Ciavaglia, Benoit Claise, Alexander Clemm, Yehia Elkhatib, Jerome
   Francois, Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez, Daniel King, Branislav
   Meandzija, Bob Natale, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Xiaolin Song, Jeff

   We thank to Barbara Martini, Walter Cerroni, Molka Gharbaoui, Davide
   Borsatti, for contributing with their 'A multi-level approach to
   IBN' PoC demonstration a first attempt to adopt the intent
   classification methodology.

I don’t understand what “contributed to creating this document” means in 10, if the first two “contributors” are also named in acknowledgements. I might suggest either having “significant contributors” in 10, and others included in 11, OR move the other four in 10 to 11, and describe their contributions more clearly. 

But I’m confused enough that I’m not sure either of those suggestions captures what you mean in 10 and 11. I'm not sure if 10 is "contributed ideas", or "contributed significant text to a -00 draft" so the mention of Xueyuan and Will in 11 means they kept contributing text to subsequent revisions, or something else. 

Seriously, I'm guessing. Could you help me understand?
Lixia Zhang
Comment (2022-04-22 for -06) Sent
The draft reads to me as a highly abstract document. I was unable to appreciate its usefulness without examples--that is entire my own fault due to my lack of knowledge on this specific topic.