Re: [DNA-BOF] [Fwd: Quality/Work Plan for DNA]

[JinHyeock Choi <athene@sait.samsung.co.kr>]

Dear Greg

Thanks for nice work. I am glad to hear 'approval', though 'conditional', 
which, I wish, we quickly do away. :-)

It seems ADs/IESG are much concerned about 'quality'. Kindly find my 
in-line comments.  

[omitted]
> - Some reason to believe that we will get sufficient
>     review of these work items.
> 
> I think that this is principally in two components:
> 
>     --> Description of processes and criteria for
>         WG's reviews (e.g. Reviewers with experience in
>         other WGs, cross area, number of reviews,
>         incorporation of feedback, stage of review).
> 
>     --> actual identification of a set of people with
>         experience and skills to undertake the reviews.
> 
>    Once again, if you have an interest in providing a
>    review, please tell Pekka and I.  It's easier to
>    get more volunteers than we need now, rather than
>    search later.
> 
>    If there's a good example of how this may be done,
>    Perhaps people can suggest a starting place.

Sounds reasonable. 
 
>    From the quality plan proposal issued before the IESG
>    teleconference, the following stanzas were listed:
> 
>     "...
>     * All drafts will need to undergo review prior to
>       acceptance as WG work items, which includes
>       demonstration that the drafts provide a simple
>       solution to a restricted and well-understood
>       problem and that the solutions do not interact
>       negatively with existing IPv6 configuration
>       and security features, such as SEND.
>     ...
>     * An effort will be made to determine interest
>       from vendors and service providers about the
>       inclusion of the proposed features in their
>       plans.
>     ..."
> 
>     I'd guess that we need another paragraph in-between these
>     discussing how reviews will be solicited, what base of
>     expertise will be drawn upon, and when/ how many reviews of
>     WG documents have to be done.
> 
>     Do people have any opinions on this?

It seems adequate to me.  

[omitted] 
Another thanks for your efforts to further DNA. 

Best regards

JinHyeock