>Page 3 (characteristics and goals) Infrastructure Virtualization
>       It may be a characteristic of Grids (but not a necessary one).  I
>don't think it is a goal either (at least w.r.t. Infrastructure).
>I would
>remove that one.  Further virtualization work is not being done
>(infrastructure-wise) in OGF, storage, network and server
>virtualization are
>all be defined, spec'd and implemented elsewhere.
>
>Page 3 insertion in Collaboration grid
>       "and should no be" s/b "and should not be"
>
>Page 5 2nd para below Fig 1
>       "These three parts the requirements"  described was deleted.... s/b
>describe?
>
>Page 8 Capabilities table - lots of bookmark errors...
>
>I like the addition of Maturity to Table 3.  For me it draws into
>focus the
>areas that we need to agree upon and areas that need work.  I
>assume that
>some in OGF would disagree with some of the characterizations of
>Maturity
>for some of the capabilities.  Further, I assume that even though
>there is a
>broad maturity associated with the capability there may be
>functional gaps
>in the WG charter or specs referenced.  For instance, one could
>argue that
>the liberty alliance federated identity handles the Multiple Security
>infrastructures capability.  In fact, I think the heart of the
>issue we need
>to wrestle to the ground is that "better is the enemy of good
>enough".  When
>can we just adopt commercially available techniques and
>implementations vs
>when must we define and build from scratch?  This undercurrent has
>been
>running through GGF/OGF since I have been a participant.  We need
>to use
>this document as vehicle to get those arguments on the table.  To
>that end,
>how would someone disagree, how do we empower that discussion and what
>artifacts do we need to capture from the outcomes....
>
>