Added javadocs.
Renamed intent remove command.
diff --git a/core/api/src/main/java/org/onlab/onos/net/intent/package-info.java b/core/api/src/main/java/org/onlab/onos/net/intent/package-info.java
index 2517067..ff97f5b 100644
--- a/core/api/src/main/java/org/onlab/onos/net/intent/package-info.java
+++ b/core/api/src/main/java/org/onlab/onos/net/intent/package-info.java
@@ -4,5 +4,53 @@
* <em>what</em> rather than the <em>how</em>. This makes such instructions
* largely independent of topology and device specifics, thus allowing them to
* survive topology mutations.
+ * <p/>
+ * The controller core provides a suite of built-in intents and their compilers
+ * and installers. However, the intent framework is extensible in that it allows
+ * additional intents and their compilers or installers to be added
+ * dynamically at run-time. This allows others to enhance the initial arsenal of
+ * connectivity and policy-based intents available in base controller software.
+ * <p/>
+ * The following diagram depicts the state transition diagram for each top-level intent:<br>
+ * <img src="doc-files/intent-states.png" alt="ONOS intent states">
+ * <p/>
+ * The controller core accepts the intent specifications and translates them, via a
+ * process referred to as intent compilation, to installable intents, which are
+ * essentially actionable operations on the network environment.
+ * These actions are carried out by intent installation process, which results
+ * in some changes to the environment, e.g. tunnel links being provisioned,
+ * flow rules being installed on the data-plane, optical lambdas being reserved.
+ * <p/>
+ * After an intent is submitted by an application, it will be sent immediately
+ * (but asynchronously) into a compiling phase, then to installing phase and if
+ * all goes according to plan into installed state. Once an application decides
+ * it no longer wishes the intent to hold, it can withdraw it. This describes
+ * the nominal flow. However, it may happen that some issue is encountered.
+ * For example, an application may ask for an objective that is not currently
+ * achievable, e.g. connectivity across to unconnected network segments.
+ * If this is the case, the compiling phase may fail to produce a set of
+ * installable intents and instead result in a failed compile. If this occurs,
+ * only a change in the environment can trigger a transition back to the
+ * compiling state.
+ * <p/>
+ * Similarly, an issue may be encountered during the installation phase in
+ * which case the framework will attempt to recompile the intent to see if an
+ * alternate approach is available. If so, the intent will be sent back to
+ * installing phase. Otherwise, it will be parked in the failed state. Another
+ * scenario that’s very likely to be encountered is where the intent is
+ * successfully compiled and installed, but due to some topology event, such
+ * as a downed or downgraded link, loss of throughput may occur or connectivity
+ * may be lost altogether, thus impacting the viability of a previously
+ * satisfied intent. If this occurs, the framework will attempt to recompile
+ * the intent, and if an alternate approach is available, its installation
+ * will be attempted. Otherwise, the original top-level intent will be parked
+ * in the failed state.
+ * <p/>
+ * Please note that all *ing states, depicted in orange, are transitional and
+ * are expected to last only a brief amount of time. The rest of the states
+ * are parking states where the intent may spent some time; except for the
+ * submitted state of course. There, the intent may pause, but only briefly,
+ * while the system determines where to perform the compilation or while it
+ * performs global recomputation/optimization across all prior intents.
*/
package org.onlab.onos.net.intent;
\ No newline at end of file