Received via email:

>Regarding immediate tactical feedback (Nits:-)
>
>1. All the page numbers are set to 18
>2. 1.2 -  you still have the term "while section 4 we identify the
>current result of this process in the form of high value use cases and
>scenarios". I believe this should be "capabilities" which is the
>term I
>think we are now using
>3. 1.3 - The last sentence "Our focus is on standards and tools to
>effectively build and utilize the last of these" is a little
>confusing... Is the "last of these "Grids built on dedicated resources
>ranging from blade servers in a corporate data center to tans-national
>collections of supercomputers" or does this statement only refer to
>"trans-national supercomputers". I would reword for clarity.
>4. Section 3, in the paragraph below the picture, the word "to"
>needs to
>be included in the sentence "Each of these groups meets to capture
>requirements that are particular [to] that group.
>5. Section 3, "range of actions and responses", there seem to be some
>redundancy here. Bullet 4 talks about "ignore as out of scope" (not
>great language) and bullet 10 has the same idea. Bullet 2 "start a new
>standards group" and bullet 6 "form a new standards working group"
>also
>overlap. I would reword bullet 7 to make it less "Enterprise-specific"
>and clearer. Possibly something like ... "Form a new Research or
>Community group to develop a best practice document that might
>offer an
>interim solution until a more standardized approach can be matured and
>adopted."
>6. Section 4, Title .... The title is "High Priority Capabilities" but
>then you go on to explain that "no priority has been associated
>with the
>list" - seems inconsistent. Also the first sentence needs CAPs
>7. I think you need to unify the "tables". Table 1 has
>Category/Capability, Table 2 has Capability but they are not organized
>by "Category" (except that our Areas are a type of Category :-). I
>would
>opt'd for changing table 2 to align with Category/Capability and loose
>the Area designation. This way you have a consistent table throughout
>showing (1) Category/Capability; (2) Category/Capability/OGF
>Specification/Status/Milestone; (3) Category/Capability/Group or
>Comment
>and Maturity level. I think this will simplify things a little.
>
>Longer-term feedback for after the public comment period
>I think we need to bring into this document a little more of the
>broader
>context and landscape upon which we are operating. The notion that
>(1) we don't want to or have to do all the standards for distributed
>computing and so we collaborate extensively with other Standards
>Development organizations and leverage existing and well adopted
>standards extensively needs to be better articulated
>(2) we are no longer in a green field situation. Organizations around
>the world are building and operating grids today and thus our
>standardization efforts should be informed by both architecture and
>community practice. And ... we may want to state what our
>"architectural
>approach" or "principles" are for the reader in a future version
>(3) I would continue to like to see work done on relating
>Categories/Capabilities to Use Cases to enable the reader to make the
>connection to relevance. I know this is continuing to be discussed ...
>(4) not to state the obvious, but our current gap analysis needs
>quite a
>bit of maturing :-)
>