I've applied the font changes, and am uploading
this as GFD-R-D.051.

This has been approved for publication by the GFSG.  I
will do the font changes & final formatting as mentioned
in the tracker, then will publish as GFD.051.

Thanks to the authors for work on this document!

A nit: the doc has some inconsistent fonts and sizes - probably a result of dropping text into the template. Clean up around pp 6-8, 23, 31, 32. Most 
of the document's paragraph style is "body text" 11pt, but some is "normal" 12 pt, which is creating the inconsistent appearance.

Looks good otherwise. Thanks to the WG authors for the effort! 

John Tollefsrud

I've made a few small changes to the document: the header
and footer, and removed the mention of "DRAFT", and removed
"Revision 0.6."

This document is now in final GFSG review.

Thanks - I will do the final processing on this document, looking for any
remaining minor changes, and then it will be published.

Dejan applied suggestions by editor

The next step for this document is final GFSG review, but
it needs some final editing first.

Before presenting this to the GFSG for a 15-day review, I would
like a document with improved formatting.

Authors/editors, would you please re-submit this document with:
- all "changes" accepted in MS Word
- the copyright statement (without the GGF logo) similar to any
recently published GGF document and GFD-C.1
- regenerated/current table of contents

I did not see any problems with this document, otherwise.

From: owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Milojicic, Dejan S
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:29 PM
To: cddlm-wg@ggf.org
Cc: Hiro Kishimoto
Subject: [cddlm] SF-based language spec, dilemma whether to go with a recommendations or common practice document track

Hi,

I had an extensive discussion with Greg Newby yesterday morning on various topics, but most of the time we spent discussing the recommendation that 
Hiro brought up: "Why is SmartFrog-based language specification submitted as a recommendation track?" To be even more specific, Hiro recommended that 
it be resubmitted as a "Community Practice" because there will not be two reference implementations as a result of the standardization process. I 
checked with two other main drivers (Softricity and NEC) and neither indeed planned to pursue a reference implementation of the SmartFrog-based 
language at the time. I also checked with technical area directors and their recommendation was not to go with community practices because that track 
is applicable to something that is as commonly used as FTP and they have not considered SF to be that wide-spread. With all this information on my 
mind I approached Greg to discuss whether we should change submission to experimental or even informational track.

Our discussion was quite productive. I updated Greg that SmartFrog is in fact in active use by a number of universities, HP, and other parties; that 
it has been open-sourced; and that the submitted spec is the most formal specification of the SF language (goes well beyond the reference manual 
published for the language, system, and component model). Then we discussed the issue of the target type. At the moment the document has reached the 
point of the recommendation track and formally we can take it any way we want. The reasons for sticking with the recommendation track are the 
following:

a) At the moment it is not clear that there will or will not be another reference implementation and one already exists. Two other partners claimed 
that they will not create one, but it is possible that other parties may create one. We would need to come up with another independently implemented 
SF-language parser that would create the same output as the existing one. 

b) If the XML-based language interoperates with the SF-based language, that would be another proof point (this would require two other reference 
implementations of the XML-based language specs, though, but this is also open or the discussion).

c) If after the process, there are no other reference implementations, we can still downgrade the document. However, Greg and I estimated the value of
 proceeding the recommendations track at the moment.

I welcome comments to this discussion by email or by phone (650 236-2906 office, 650 468-3929 cell).

Hiro, I appreciate your thoughtful suggestion. It was a good observation and it took us some time to truly understand all the implications. I hope 
that the final outcome works for you. If not, I'd be glad to continue discussion until we find a solution that will work for everyone. As you can see 
from the Greg's note below, we also agreed to provide some additional front-matter to the document. Finally, I will submit this email to Source Forge 
to capture this discussion. I recommend that any follow-ups also be submitted there.

Thanks,

Dejan.

Greg's GridForge input is available at
https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414&aid=827&group_
id=90 and also copied below:

Comment By: Greg Newby (2004-12-08 11:35:03) Per a telephone conversation with Dejan, I now agree this should be recommendation track.  The authors 
are essentially providing a CDDLM specification which, at the same time, is the most formal specification for SmartFrog.
There is already one reference implementation, and we anticipate there will be more by the end of the GGF's recommendation review timeline.

Some additional front matter will be added to provide further background on  SmartFrog, as well as the nature of existing reference implementations 
and the relationship to CDDLM (as an application area for SmartFrog).

This document is waiting for authors comments. Authors have been posed a question "why it is recommendation document instead of community practice" 
and Hiro has not received an answer yet.

Document has finished public comment period you can view comments at https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=419

Document will now enter a 60 day public comment period. Due date: 9-14-04

I have reviewed this document, and believe it should go out for public comment.  (I have a couple edits which I will make as part of the official 
public comment process).