Hi Mike, I share a part of your points. However, the question asks as "... the *specification's functionality* address? " I guess a storage interface or a file format in general may not be described as functionally addressing to any of these. If this is not an intended way to answer, they will reconfirm us. In my opinion, ACS repository can contain any layer of the information, which may cover all of the category. On the other hand, ACS doesn't dig into the contents of those files. The second choice, as Pete commented, may be closest to describe the ACS. Also, since we will specify the signature in some way the last choice on Security Management maybe relevant. However, as a whole, I doubt that choosing among them serves depicting ACS. So I'd rather choose none than some (or all). -Keisuke Michael Behrens wrote:

Pete, I was wondering if more could be selected in #10. It could be argued that ACS supports accountability, metrics if the access logs to ACS were captured. Also, since ACS contains resource configuration information, it might also support the various configuration management layers.

Keisuke Fukui wrote:

...

Hi Pete,

Thanks for compilation of the information. It is fine for the most part.

Item 9: English. Item 15, 16: GGF, I guess. However, for the URI for the rules, the admin of the scrm will find the most appropriate URI. So let's leave them as blank. Or "(GGF)" looks better? Item 18: Not sure if we can fill here with planned but not yet visible implementation. I guess this corresponds to the adoption columns standard status table we saw at the GGF14 scrm meeting. So I think "NAREGI project and Business Grid project has plans" would be a fair description. Item 19: We are not referring CDDLM *normatively*, but will just demonstrate or introduce the capability to interact with CDDLM. For the Solution Installation, we will eventually refer it in some way, but not yet. So I think "We are expecting that OASIS SDD is referred normatively." would be a fair description. Item 20: Yes. Let's fill here with "OGSA v1"

These are the all comments from me. I don't have any issues on all others you filled. My apologies to my late response.

-Keisuke

Ziu, Peter wrote:

...

Does anyone have any comments/corrections on/to this document before it goes to Hiro? (see attached) If we could get a review of this document on the agenda for next meeting (or just comments in email) it would be greatly appreciated.

Pete.

-----Original Message----- *From:* owner-acs-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-acs-wg@ggf.org]*On Behalf Of *pete@ziu.net *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:16 PM *To:* kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com *Cc:* acs-wg@ggf.org *Subject:* [acs-wg] scrm-pvt - first draft of Landscape Information doc for ACS

Keisuke and group,

I have been requested by Hiro to submit the SCRM draft Landscape Information doc for ACS specification to him, so that he may pass it up to SCRM. This is an informational document about all specs of interest within SCRM, to help sort out the numerous efforts in the management space. I have updated the form I originally sent to you to the latest draft version. I have inserted comments since it is in need of review. I would like to make sure I am properly reflecting ACS facts. Tom, might you find time to review as well (especially the check box things? Do you think we might be able to review next meeting?

Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms)