Some of these are reflected in the document just mentioned.
This message, from Hiro Kishimoto, was in response to a
GFSG discussion about whether this document might benefit
from adjustment to be better aligned with current OGSA documents
and the newly release roadmap.  

Overall, the GFSG is very supportive of this document and the
work it represents.

The message:


At the last GFSG call, I was asked to check if it is ok to use OGSA
prefix for this OGSA-AuthZ-WG submitted document "Attributes used in
OGSA Authorization"

My short answer is YES. This document is consistent with OGSA
architecture document (GFD-I.30), thanks Frank and Takuya for their
efforts.

However, my long answer is that this document needs substantial
refinements includes; technical accuracy, OGSA alignment, and
legibility. However, I don't have any show stoppers which block up
public comment review promptly. Actually, issues I've found can be (or
should be) filed and resolved during public comment review period.

I am pretty sure OGSA-AuthZ-WG is defining "OGSA Authorization service"
and its attributes. And it is consistent with our OGSA architecture
described in GFD-I.30.

However, so far only Frank and Takuya are our contact point to them and
OGSA-WG core team was disconnected to OGSA-AuthZ-WG. OGSA-WG core team
should have direct connection, including joint review of this
document and related their documents ASAP.

My non nits-picking comments are as follows;

- This document should refer OGSA Architecture 1.0 (GFD-I.30) and should
  not refer OGSI or "OGSA security roadmap."
- OGSA roadmap document should include this document.
- This doc depends on SAML 1.1, on the other hand, OGSA WSRF BP 1.0
  depends on SAML 1.0. Is this an issue?
- Separate reference section into (a) normative references, and (b) non-
  normative references.
- This document refer to several early stage (pre GGF Editor submission)
  documents.

Again, they can be resolved by public comment review period.