Mass Update

Document will be removed today from the Editor pipeline. Authors will have to resubmit their document and start over in the process.

If the Area Directors and/or Editor do not hear back from you on November 12 2004 your document will be removed from the document pipeline. 

Once your document is removed you will have to resubmit your document.

It is important to GGF that the work that has gone
into preparation of this draft result in a published
document.  

While this draft is still considered to be in the editor
pipeline for publication, we have placed the draft in
the "Waiting for Author Action" tracker.  For 
administrative purposes this tracker is used to hold
all drafts that have been pending action from
authors for 30 days.  Examples include documents
without editable source, missing information, or
edits requested by the editor or Area Directors.

If no action is taken within 90 days the draft will
time out and be returned to the authors.

To reanimate this document, authors should
complete the requested actions and notify the
Area Director or Editor (editor@ggf.org).  

Authors are encouraged to review the actions
requested so that this draft can be advanced in
the publication pipeline.

I've read the document and other than some editorial comments on
format and ordering, I believe it captures some relevant work for the 
community. There are is a coordination issue with the originating body
(the ABA) for the definition, but if that is resolved and some
minor formatting issues addressed then this should proceed to public comment as an informational document.

The document type on the header and elsewhere in the text needs to be
changed to informational.

Section 1.2 is the meat of the document and as such should be pulled out
of the Introduction has have a section all its own. It would be natural to 
move it into Section 2 of the current document and renumber/name sections.

The language in section 1.2 seems normative ("The body of the PDS
must contain....") but this is not clearly stated in the document nor does
it seem consistent with the purpose of the document (a summary for 
non-expert humans to read quickly). This section should be clarified
as to what is normative and what is not.

If it is normative, than a glossary expanding on the meanings of terms
like "reliance limits" or "class/type of certificate" would be in order.

The table beginning on the bottom of page 2 seems a verbatim copy
of Appendix 6 (reference error in this text) from the referenced ABA PAG document. The credits given in section 1.1 seem a little weak for that 
relationship. I would like to understand what communication (attempts) there has been with the authors of the ABA PAG and that they have no
concerns with this publication and reference. 

Given that the ABA PAG document referenced is in draft that went out for public comment in June of 2001 (and is still the current status as far as I 
can tell), there may be no response. Given it is 361 pages long, an extract of this one particularly relevant piece has value as a digest.

I would like to ask that the preference for plain text expressed in GFD.1
be honored here. The one table that is current graphic representation
should be readily convertable to formatted text.

When you submit the revised draft, please follow the 
draft-ggf-cpops-gridpds-<version>.txt naming convention.

Dane

I've not yet read this version. Claim is it addresses my
comments.

New version has been submitted from comments made.  Document needs to go through GFSG review

Heard back from both Chairs. They are working on responses
to the comments now.

I'm confused about the goal of this paper. It seems to present a
definition of what a "PKI Disclosure Statement" is. In which
case, it would seem to me to be a Requirements track or Experimental
track document or an Informational document.

A Community Standards document would seem to me to cover
a recommendation that it's best practice to use a PDS (in which case
it needs a normative reference -- we should not use Internet Drafts
as references) which they don't seem to be making nor does there 
appear to be a large community using them.

It needs another round of copy editing (see the grammar in section
3. section 6 is completely empty, ...)

Minor copy edits.
Submitted to GFSG for 15d review.