Hiro,

Thank you very much for your reviewing and giving us a valuable comments. Here are responses to your comments.

> 
> I read this specification. It is good document but I would suggest the 
following 
>  comments. 
>  
> (1) The title should be ACS 1.0. ""Revision 1 is redundant. 

Removed from the cover page.
It is intended to indicate the internal revision during the review process.

>  
> (2) Since OGSA is a trademark of GGF, it should be mentioned 
>  in the first page. 

Trademark statement is inserted.

>  
> (3) Policy rule (on page 4) is too generic. Should be called 
>  more specific term. 

Removed the "policy rules" from the description. 

>  
> (4) Section 1.2 need some examples which explain what are out 
>  of scope. 

Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter which is non-normative. It is not intended to precisely exhaust all the out of 
scope items. We decided to keep the original text.

>  
> (5) Section title 2.1.2. I am not sure what does "Grid" 
>  mean here. 

Changed "Grid" to "Grid application" so that it makes sense.

>  
> (6) Section 2.1.3 needs more explanation. 

Changed section title and description to improve readability.

>  
> (7) Section 2.4 should read "OGSA WSRF BP" instead 
>  of "OGSA infrastructure." 

Instead of refer each document name, replace the sentence as below:
The service must be implemented as an OGSA service based on profiles developed by OGSA-WG.
>  
> (8) Section 3.1.5. Please explain the difference between AA 
> Identifier and WS-Name. 

AAID is a producer provided information and specified in ACS, while WS-Name should be provided by ACS repository. We 
assume that use of the WS-Name should be specified by other specification than ACS itself.

>  
> (9) I think section 3.2.1 should be a part of Chapter 5. 

The document have below text in Chapter 5, while we decided to keep the text in section 3.2.1. as it is.

5.1.4 Other requirements for the ACS implementation
To be conformant to OGSA WSRF Basic Profile, the ApplicationRepository MUST 
implement the following portTypes.

5.2.5 Other requirements for the ACS implementation
To be conformant to OGSA WSRF Basic Profile, the ApplicationArchive 
implementation MUST implement the following portTypes.

>  
> (10) Section 3.3.4 mentions Byte-IO and GridFTP as a part 
> of OGSA-data WG. However, these are developed by the other 
> WGs. 

Changed text to address this comment as below:
ACS provides an extension point for protocols which allow implementations to specify which protocols are supported. The 
ACS team has reviewed briefings and draft documents developed by data-releated WGs in GGF such as OGSA-DATA, OGSA-ByteIO
, GridFTP.

>  
> (11) Section 3.3.5 refers OGSA WSDM profile but it is not yet 
> planned. 

Changed text to address this comment as below:
The ACS specification leaves the manageability aspect to the standards set by external references
>  
> (12) Since chapter 7 is not normative, please use "must" 
>  instead of "MUST." 

Done.

>  
> (13) Schema definitions in section 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 need GGF 
> copyright statement. 

Done.

>  
> (14) I prefer to separate normative reference and non-normative reference (page 
>  74). Also OGSA WSRF BP and WSRF references are not uptodate.
> 

Done.

Again, we appreciate your efforts. They all gave us a base for improving our document.

 -Keisuke