Here's another response. Same drill as Dave's - object by the 25th. The comment is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/topc4016 And reads:
Here are my comments on the draft.
Section 1.3 - In types of grids discussion, 'Collaboration Grids' is in bold, other types are not. Make this consistent.
Yes.
Section 2 - the last sentence of the OGF goal definition says "... build real operation grids using OGF-defined components.". I believe this should say 'standards' rather than 'components'. Component to me implies an implementation, a standard should allow for multiple implementations.
On the other hand, the phrase "OGF-defined standards" could lead the reader to believe that our goal does not allow for external standards - this is certainly not an impression we would like to leave. Defining a component and implementing a components are two very different things.
Section 4.1.3 - first sentence should read "... PERMIS [5], and XACML." rather than "... PERMIS [5], XACML."
Yes.
Section 5 - In the 'Current Status' discussion I suggest this be modified to follow the the same 3-tier recommendation convention as defined GFD.1. The current wording implies that having reference implementations and interop test preceeds a Proposed Recommendation, while GFD.1 says this is required to transition from Proposed to Draft Recommendation. So the steps might be recast as: Concept, WrkGrp, WG-Draft, Proposed-Std, Draft-Std, Grid-Std, Product, Deploy.
We should track GFD.1 accurately, but we also want to emphasize that there should be implementations and interop testing before the spec is finalized. We'll rework this section accordingly.
Table 3 - under Web services security the 'OGSA-SBP' specs should be 'OGSA-BSP' specs. Also, both of these have now achieved Proposed Recommendation status.
Thanks.
Table 4 - under security, web service protocol security, change 'OGSA Secure Channel" to "OGSA-BSP specs". Both of the BSP specs are applicable.
Thanks.