Comment-ID	Title	Posted By	Status	Resolution/Discussion
1	Changing Offers	Toshiyuki Nakata	Resolved	Treat the normative part as correct.
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)
3	Semantics of related agreements ill-defined[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved (14thFeb)	Related agreements agreed last weeks to be taken out, but some discussion was still going on.  Not enough further argument to change this decision.  **Could be a primer issue as used in a service description term.
4	How do we know that terms are fulfilled?[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved (15thFeb)	This seems to be outside the scope as it requires lots of further infrastructure. **Action: Add such information in the spec that says that enforcement is outside the scope.
5	Why is the termination time part of context?[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved	Because the expiration time refers to the whole of Agreement. **Action: leave it in place, capture this discussion, add justifying statements to the document.
6	ZeroOrMore needed[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved	Unless someone gives a clear Usecase of how this term is used, stick to the current proposal.
7	Specification too complex[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved	Spec. doesn't require that entire thing be used in every example, so complexity can be removed in specific cases.  This can be more clearly stated.  **Action: Can also reply that actual number of structures is not all that large.
8	AgreementIsProvider attribute[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	Resolved(23rd Feb)	Wewill augment the guarantee terms with which party is obligated and the obligee for each guarantee by role (initiator or provider).  Alsoimplies a response to issue #32.  Now that obligation is specific,there's no need for the AgreementInitiatorIsServiceConsumer flag in the context.
9	Related Agreements and Brokers[ Reply ]	Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)	To Be Discussed
10	Referred Specs[ Reply ]	Komori Hitoshi	Being Discussed	We need to be explict about the state of the specs. that we refer to,including their version.  Be clear where these are public but not ratified by any standards body.  Update table on page 6 (section1.1.1).  Remove the MAY be composed entries.  Add column where we areexplict about version that will be used.  (Revisit this at beginning of next week).
11	Three "nits"	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
12	WS-Agreement spec - proposed refactoring	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
13	Consistency of WSRF ResProp. based monitoring	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
14	WS-Agreement dependent on less mature specs	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed	cf Entry 9
15	Use of WS-ResourceProperties	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
16	Organisation of runtime monitoring material	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
17	No XML snippets for Resource Properties in S8	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
18	Inconsistent use of expiration / termination	Jon MacLaren	To Be Discussed
19	Figure 2	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
20	glossary and Figure 1	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
21	comments about Section 7 (run time states)	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
22	definition of compliance in Section 6	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
23	Language problem in Section 5.1.1	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
24	creation contraints and serv. lev. Objectives	Tiziana Ferrari	To Be Discussed
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
31	ServiceProvider/ServiceCustomer explicit	Heiko Ludwig	Resolved(23rd Feb)	cf Entry 8
32	Obliged party attribute for terms	Heiko Ludwig	Resolved(23rd Feb)	cf Entry 8
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
37
38
39
40