Mass Update

Sent follow-up email on April 12.

Document will now enter 60 day public comment period. You may make comments at https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=461

Due date: 2-17-05

Stacey,

We will not be providing a new version.  I wouldn't know where to stop, and the group's decided to handle all updates via the public comment process 
at this point.

Thanks.

--- jim

Jim-

Will you be uploading a new version before the 60 day public comment period?

Sorry for my delay in responding.  This document is now in 15-day GFSG comment period.  After that, and any suggested changes, public comment is the 
next phase.

Here are some comments that you might want to incorporate in a further revision before public comment (you can do these immediately, or wait until 
after the GFSG comment period, in case there are other suggestions).

In the header: Consider whether all the people listed should be Authors or Editors.  With such a large group, maybe you really only have one or two 
Editors, and the rest belong in a separate Contributor's section.  Remember that Authors (or Editors) are expected to fully endorse the complete 
documenta, and to remain responsible/responsive for the document for the future.

The GGF full copyright & IP statement can be moved to the end, rather than the beginning (I think GFD-1 specifies this, but even if not, that seems to
 be current practice).

References: I would *much* rather see references to actual *documents*, not just Web sites.  Web sites are transient (the sites today are not the same
 as yesterday or tomorrow).  Documents (published by the same people doing the site) are, we hope, more permanent.  The purpose of References is so 
that someone who reads your document in, say, a few years, will be able to recreate the foundations on which your standards are built, by reviewing 
the documents you cite in your references.  Please revisit these, and add specific documents/standards whenever possible.  For the others, Web sites 
should not be in the References, they should simply be mentioned inline in the text.

In the Appendices, you have some examples in blue, some with syntax highlighting, and some in black/grey.  Any reason why these can't be consistent?

Overall, this document is clearly written and seems to be well-designed.  Thanks very much for your work on it.

Are there any updates on the status of this?  It's been ~3weeks since the last update.  Thanks.

The document needs the addition of the standard GFD.1 Section 4 structural elements (header, author affiliations, etc.), and then it will be ready for
 public comment.

I have notified Jim Pruyne.  Once an updated draft is uploaded with the GFD.1 Section 4 items added, it should be put out for public comment.