Hi, Here is a quick summary of the meeting this morning. Only Stuart and myself attended, but it was quite productive. 1. There will be a mandatory meeting next week. Can we please have all members of the team provide detailed feedback to Stuart on this spec. In the meanwhile (by next Monday), Stuart will provide additional version of the spec, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THIS ONE, the changes will be minimal and he does not depend on the feedback for these changes. Please comment on the previous version of the spec. 2. In the spirit of coming up with the reference implementations, we need to discuss what pieces of the work proposed in the original Foundation spec are not covered by existing specs. Engine interfaces come to mind. At the next meeting, I would like to revisit the commitments on who does what wrt reference implementations for the Chicago GGF. If we have additional resource, what would be most critical for the team to address: e.g. an independent reference implementation of an engine or a way to verify interoperability between existing (and which) reference implementations, etc. 3. Yesterday, Dejan presented the GGF CDDLM WG at the DMTF Utility WG. This informal presentation raised some interest, in particular the opportunities for declaratively expressing dependencies among deployment modules and its relationship to models. We agreed to explore possibility for the two groups meeting at Chicago. Once I have the most recent set of specs, I will pass them to the Utility WG (this means the newest component model and deployment APIs specs). Thanks, Dejan.