WS-Agreement is dependent upon both WSRF-RP (WS-ResourceProperties) and WS-Addressing.  GRAAP is currently trying to 
move WS-Agreement up the Recommendation track, to GFD-P-R - i.e. Proposed Recommendation.  Yet neither the WSRF-RP or WS
-Addressing specifications have reached the equivalent OASIS or W3C stage (I believe these are: OASIS Standard and W3C 
Candidate Recommendation).  Indeed I believe that neither of these have got as far as entered the community/public 
comment period.

This situation could clearly lead to complications.  (We've seen this recently with the removal of ReferenceProperties 
from WS-Addressing having an affect on WSRF-RP.)  Indeed, it was forseen by the IETF, and is typically forbidden.  In 
the IETF RFC 2026, at the end of the description of the standards process
(last paragraph before Section 5), it states:

   "Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
   other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
   level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced
   specifications from other standards bodies."

The GGF Process document is not as explicit as this.  However, I believe that at the very least, the WS-Agreement 
specification should contain a highly visible statement in the front matter, stating what normative specifications are 
not yet standardised.  Further, the text of the specification should clearly justify the use of less mature standards, 
in particular where alternatives exist (see author's comments regarding possible alternatives to the use of WSRF 
Resource Properties).