Updated Date
Document Tracker	https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=71&category_id=659
Comment Tracker	https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=461
Takuya's Draft for Asynch (8.2) is attached at the end of	http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/graap-wg/2004/11/msg00004.html
Comment-ID	Title	Posted By	Status	Resolution/Discussion
2	Minor comments & asynchronous operations[ Reply ]	Takuya Araki	On discussion	Discuss on the mailing-list. (especially wrt . Having it in the protocol or having it in the bindings)
12	WS-Agreement spec - proposed refactoring	Jon MacLaren	Resolved?	Proposed that the agreement document structure be separated from any of the supporting services/port-types.  **Action: For at least one first time reader, it seems at the proper granularity. Concern that it will result in "chasing document" if we split it any further though from a purely technical perspective this would be possible and perhaps sound.
15	Use of WS-ResourceProperties	Jon MacLaren	Being Discussed	Our approach will be to support port-types consistent with the convention used in WS-ResourceProperty.   **Action: Will be re-addressed on the next call.  Also find out what the state of WS-RP is.
18	Inconsistent use of expiration / termination	Jon MacLaren	Being Discussed	Superceded by subsequent discussion on lifecycle which is to be addressed.
21	comments about Section 7 (run time states)	Tiziana Ferrari	Being Discussed	Is our state model extensible is an important question.  For example, "Not Ready" is not always a needed state.  What we'd like to do is update the overall state diagram.  We need to introduce an initial state.  Processing is removed as a top-level state, and can be considered a sub-state of Ready.  Transition from either "Not Ready" or "Ready" to "Completed" is possible.  **Action: update the state diagram and description text.  Try to find a better word than "Completed."  **Asit to own the updates.
22	definition of compliance in Section 6	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
24	creation contraints and serv. lev. Objectives	Tiziana Ferrari	Partially Resolved	Discussion: yes, this is what we have done.  **Action: Send request for clarifying e-mail to Tiziana to make sure that we're  understanding the request correctly, ideally pointing to an example in the doc.  Heiko will contact her.
25	Occurance of AssessmentInterval in Comp.Type	Heiko Ludwig	To Be Discussed
26	TerminalFault	Tiziana Ferrari
27	Agreement name optional	Mike Fisher
28	Consistent approach to Term Compositors	Mike Fisher
29	Guarantee Terms	Mike Fisher
30	Include base objective set for web services	Asit Dan
33	Explain service reference use better	Heiko Ludwig
34	Refining scope of Guarantee Terms	Heiko Ludwig
35	Guarantee terms for best effort systems	Heiko Ludwig
36	Business Value Table	Heiko Ludwig
Other issues being Discussed
1	Signature of Agreement	Karl and Jon	Being Discussed in the ML	This requires some extensibility on the input and output to the create agreement operations.  Perhaps already covered in the current versions.  **Action: Karl to review the current spec. in this area.
2	how to specify the criticality of an extension	Karl		That is, would an extension have to be processed, or may it be safely ignored if a provider doesn't understand them.  Is there a community best-practice alredy in place or needed for this?