I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why certain decisions were made with respect to tracker resolution. The most verbose the descriptions seem to get are "assigned to so-and-so for clarification". There's no context, and since I've missed a few phone calls that dealt with objections I've had, I have no idea why the decisions were made. Could whoever is resolving these trackers kindly make an effort to include more context so people don't have to ask later why certain things are the way they are? I don't think it's appropriate to expect that everybody interested in BES should be able to attend every single telecon just to get information on tracker resolution. That's why Gridforge allows comments to be attached to trackers, IMHO. I'm not trying to be mean here. I just think we could do better from the "open process" point of view in explaining what we're doing and why. That said, I have a couple of questions about tracker resolutions that. I'd be grateful if anybody attending the associated telecon could answer them. 1) What was the reason for keeping ContainedResourceAttributes and not including attributes like ContainedStatuses and ContainedActivityDocuments? Was there a concensus on why the problems associated with aggregation of activity attributes should be ignored? 2) Why are we still essentially advocating WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't defined any interop standards yet? Thanks! Peter