This version of the spec is much improved over the previous WS-Ag versions that went to public comment. A few comments:

1: In section 5.2, you should state that an agreement SHOULD agree (i.e. conform to) with any template on which it is 
based. This should not be a MUST though; the templates are not binding on the agreements.

2: (Pure Editorial Issue) The diagram in section 7.1 is obviously sampled from elsewhere as it looks pixellated and ugly
. Please redraw. (The diagrams in sections 7.2 and 7.3 are OK, except for a minor text clipping issue on the 'g' in "
Processing" in the 7.2 diagram)

3: (Pure Editorial Issue) There are asterisks (*) around some organization names in section 12, which looks bad. If 
those organizations are to be distinguished for some reason, use italics or bold.

4: You really need to do a Primer, even more than JSDL needs one!

5: You do not clearly state that agreements refer to web-services. Please add a bit that does so (probably just a short 
clause), probably in both the abstract and in section 1.1.

6: It would be nice if the Penalty (section 4.2.6.4.2) could describe multiple values in the same element ("$40 _and_ a 
free one-time license for Gaussian!") instead of having to describe several Penalty elements with the same 
AssessmentInterval. Might also want to allow both TimeInterval and Count to be present so that can state that for a 
particular penalty, it is assessed e.g. every 30 minutes but the penalty is only paid out once.

7: (Pure Editorial Issue) You're not consistent in your indenting. Don't you just love Word? I find that the only way I 
can solve this sort of thing is by minimizing the number of "styles in use"...

8: (Pure Editorial Issue) Only some URLs in the references are hyperlinks. Either all should be, or none should be. ("
None" involves less work for you.)

9: (Pure Editorial Issue) Section names should be "Capitalized Properly", so Section 2.1's name needs to be "Job 
Submission" and 2.2's name needs to change to "Advance Reservation or Pre-Establishment of Resource Preferences"

10: (Pure Editorial Issue) The document title probably shouldn't appear in the Contents, but this is surprisingly 
difficult to fix in Word without causing more chaos than is justifiable.

11: You should say more about Security Considerations since there are financial implications of an agreement. In 
particular, don't say "it may be desirable to authenticate the participants" but instead say "implementations SHOULD 
authenticate the participants". Then you need to say that the specification does not say how to do this, though you 
could point to the OGSA secure channel stuff as a way to do it.