From Erik Vullings:

three minor corrections from my
side in section 2.2:
- Typo: Erik Vullings gave a presentation
- 
- The XACML editor is current work, not prior work
- The Claim Transformation Service is very similar to myVocs (which I
didn't know of at that time) so you can maybe refer to it.

Three comments in total:

1. The term GridSite is used where "Shibboleth integration into GridSite" (or "Shib and GridSite") should be used:
Section 2, Subsection 3.1 (first mention of GridSite).

Two remaining comments on the aesthetics of the document:

2, The strings "x509" and "X509" are used interchangeably throughout, perhaps "X.509" should be used instead.

3, The Project URLs (section 5) some are seen to have been formatted by the underlying editing software and others have not, this should be made 
consistant.

No further comments.

Thanks for this submission.  It looks like a useful chronicle
of the BoF, and will be of historical value as Grid+Shib
progresses.

It will go into 30-day public comment.  For this type of
document, it's particularly valuable for BoF participants
to confirm through public comment the accuracy of the
text concerning their presentations.

Dear Author or Draft Editor-

Thank you for submitting your draft to the GGF Editor!  In most cases the draft 
will be assigned to an Area Director for review as the first step in the document 
publication process.

The URL provided with this note allows you to track your submission and to 
communicate with the GGF Editor or Area Director(s) who are reviewing the 
draft.  At the very bottom of the tracker display (web page) a detailed log of all 
actions related to this submission is available.

You may also wish to alert your colleagues that the draft has been submitted, and from their GridForge accounts they may wish to monitor this item in 
order to receive email any time action is taken regarding this submission.

Informational and Experimental drafts are reviewed by the GGF Editor and one 
or more Area Directors.  The GGF Editor will determine whether the draft is 
ready for public comment, or if there are items for the author(s) to address 
prior to public comment.  This initial review generally takes no more than two 
weeks.

Community Practice and Recommendations Track drafts require a GFSG review 
prior to public comment.  This can add 2-3 weeks to the initial GGF Editor 
review depending on current workload of the GFSG.

Please do not hesitate to inquire about the status of your submission at any time by way of comments added to this tracker item, which will be 
automatically emailed to the individual who appears in the "assigned to" field.

Thanks very much- 
GGF Editor