Bill, et al, Sorry, I was swamped, and only I had a chance to go over the charter in detail yesterday. I saw a couple of items that I'd like to comment on. 1) Regarding the sentence: "Setting up a data movement includes the selection of a transport protocol, for example GridFTP, and parameters for reliability, timing, scheduling, resource usage, accounting, billing, etc. The Working Group will explore existing mechanisms to reach such agreement, e.g. WS-Agreement and use them where appropriate." Thus, in the setup phase, all kinds of services will have to be contacted, such as components that manage resources, components that perform scheduling, keep track of accounting, etc. For example, to reserve storage space, the data movement service may want to interact with SRMs. I think this is a huge undertaking, and too large of a scope. Even if you go through WS-agreement, it will have to interact with various resource managers, accounting, billing, etc. You may want to leave all the setup to a separate component, like WS-agreement, and then focus on the data movement part. 2) A related point, in the "Seven questions: Evaluation Criteria (from GFD.3)" document it says: "The most direct overlap would be with the gsm-wg, but they are participating in this group and will, presumably, use what is developed here for the transport portion of their interface." Yes, it makes sense for SRMs to make use of powerful transport services, since SRMs rely on transport services. But, when a request is made to an SRM, they take care of managing storage space, keeping track of usage and accounting, as well as perform scheduling, so it does not make sense for the transport services to negotiate storage allocations (including lifetime), scheduling, etc, again, as is suggested in the "setup phase" above. 3) In the charter document, it says: "To accomplish 3^rd party data transfer, a uniform, yet abstract naming scheme for resources (data in general, files in particular) is required. This working group will provide such abstract uniform naming scheme." I think this was the goal of the GFS-WG group, to the extent that I understand what they doing. It might be good to coordinate with them. Also, isn't the issue if a uniform name space (also referred to as logical namespace) and its mapping into physical names fall into the RLS domain (and future related activities). Do you really want to keep track of this mapping as part of the data movement service? Perhaps I don't understand the concept. Please clarify. Thanks, Arie