Mass Move

I was just wondering whether the Survey (this tracker, #982) should be numbered first in the GGF document series, or the Guidelines (tracker #981).  
If you think the Guidelines should be first, let us know and we'll renumber them.

Thanks very much.  This looks super, and is now published as GFD #40.  Stacey will move the files to their final destination.  I appreciate your 
diligence on this document!

Final revised version. Changes mentioned on tracker 982 have been made. Some comments:

- on sections 2.2.1/2.4.2:
the example for the literal IPv6 address usage has been added. However, this is a survey and as such simply alerts to the fact that a specification is
/isn't IPv6 compliant. The way that implementations should deal with such issues have already been addressed in the "Guideline for IP version 
independence in GGF specifications" draft.

- on section 7., security considerations:
Given that this is a survey on specifications,the comments made on tracker #981 for the guidelines for IP independence draft do not apply here, they 
are out of the scope of the document.

This document is ready to go.  I'm making a few small recommendations, to accompany your "Guidelines" document (tracker 981).  Please upload a final 
document when you're ready.

- update the date in the header.

- consider whether there are really 5 Authors (for the header), or whether there are just one or two Editors and the rest are contributors (for 
listing in a later section).  It seems that sometimes people list everyone involved in a document as an Author, which is not ideal.  An Author (or 
Editor) is someone who can vouch for the entire document, and is willing to engage in correspondence & upkeep for the forseeable future.  If all 5 are
 authors, that's fine - but if not, consider listing just one or two editors, and moving the rest to a Contributor section.

- 1.2 "GRID" - is this an acronym, or just Grid?  (There is not yet a standard use of "Grid" versus "grid," but my view is that "Grid" currently means
 the (GGF) standards-compliant grid, and "grid" is generic).

- please double-check that all acronyms are written fully on first use

- 2.2.1: could you put an example of correct usage for http://example.com or similar?  Ditto for 2.4.2.

- Section 5: the 1st paragraph(s) before the table have some spacing or other issues.  It's not clear whether this is three paragraphs missing extra 
lines in-between, or whether it's supposed to be one paragraph.  Just a little formatting will fix this.

- Section 6: See my comment about security considerations for tracker 981.  Might the same apply here?  Is there a risk from improper specification of
 use of IP versions?

- References: add a blank line after each reference, or outdent each entry.

Go ahead and respond or update, and upload the final version.  Thanks for your work on this!

Document will now enter 30 day public comment period.

Due date: 9-13-04

This draft has completed the necessary steps prior to
being made available for public comment.  Authors, 
working group / research group chairs, and Area
Directors should encourage individuals to participate
in the public comment process and should announce
the public comment availability to appropriate
communities and groups.

Public comments can be viewed and submitted via
the GridForge Editor pages (see Forums) or:

http://www.ggf.org/documents

Public comments play an important part in the advancement
of a GGF draft and publication as a document in the 
GGF document series.

An active public comment period strengthens the case
that the document is a useful and desired work product
for some community of consumers.

Mass Update

This document has already been reviewed by an AD. It will now proceed to GFSG Review.