This list of items was compiled by Cees de Laat. I have listed them together here so that 
we don't loose them. But I have not tried to assess them or sort them in any way.

>1) page 6: , we define a gwsdl extension to WSDL. This is a temporary 
>measure until WSDL 1.2 is complete
>
>Does this mean that there will be a revision of this doc before it ever 
>can get at full recommendation (from the proposed state)?
>
>2) page 9: GSH -> HandleResolver -> GSR : how does a client know a GSR has 
>become invalid?
>
>Specify how to locate Handleresolver   [THIS IS TREATED IN THE DOC FURTHER 
>DOWN] Maybe just some clarification here.
>
>3) page 12: the statement: "The Global Grid Forum commits to updating OGSI 
>when WSDL 1.2 [WSDL 1.2] is published as a draft specification by the 
>W3C." is a serious one. Why can't we get an equivalent statement from 
>them? Otherwise we may end up having to redo this part of OGSI. This also 
>adds to 1) above.
>
>4) page 12:
>targetNamespace=
>    http://www.gridforum.org/namespaces/2003/03/gridWSDLExtensions
>do we want everywhere gridforum.org to be replaced by ggf.org, also in the 
>namespaces...?
>
>5) page 13: "The following is from [WSDL 1.2 DRAFT]:" means that this text 
>is unstable, may change in the future. I don't know but assume that just 
>as the ietf the w3c forbids or discourages references to draft docs?
>
>from that draft:
>"This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by 
>other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts 
>as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". 
>This is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by, or the 
>consensus of,
>either W3C or members of the Web Services Description Working Group."
>
>6) page 14 last sentence: facilitates the execution of operations against 
>the service
>
>Am I correct to replace: against -> on
>
>7) page 20 in 6.2.3: for consistency use MUST NOT or SHALL NOT in the 
>static and extendable spec.
>
>8) page 23: I consider it inappropriate to have the last part of the 
>sentence "PortTypes of this sort are in error and the designer should be 
>ridiculed." in an official spec.
>
>9) page 25: I am unsure if I understand what is meant by: "However, 
>clients and services MUST accept and act appropriately on messages 
>containing time values that are out of range due to inadequate 
>synchronization, where "appropriately" MAY include refusing to use the 
>information associated with those time values."
>Does "accept and act appropriately" mean that "when out of range times are 
>detected for whatever reason, client and servers MUST treat this as an 
>error condition"?
>
>10) page 25: "Zero time SHOULD be represented by a time in the past or by 
>the string "now." "
>means it is possible to subtract two zero times and end up with a finite 
>time interval. Is that a problem?
>
>11) page 25: in fact the terms zero time and infinite time are badly 
>defined. What is meant, an absolute time point or an interval.
>Should be corrected because if these values are to be used late for 
>accounting purposes, the definitions should be precise.
>
>12) page 30: should the SHOULD's in 751 not be MUST's?
>
>13) on page 31: "A GSR is valid when the associated Grid service instance 
>exists and can be accessed through use of the Grid Service Reference, but 
>validity MAY only be detected by the client attempting to utilize the GSR. "
>
>This MAY means desirable. I can interpret this as there are possibilities 
>that the client can not detect the (in)validity of the GSR, correct? 
>However, maybe far fetched from me. I would phrase: ", but validity MUST 
>be detectable by the client...."
>
>14) page 31: I guess the working group went over this: "Use of an invalid 
>Grid Service Reference by a client SHOULD result in an exception being 
>detected by or presented to the client. "
>
>why not MUST?
>
>15) page 33: 7.5.2.1 : Sameness ?? Should this be Semantics?
>
>16) page 34: "If the requested termination time is before the current 
>time, then this SHOULD be interpreted as a request for immediate termination."
>
>Should this SHOULD not be a MUST? Otherwise the service could remain to 
>exist continuing to incurr costs to the client.
>
>17) page 35: "(ogsi:ExtendedDateTimeType is defined in �7.2, which allows 
>for the expression of an xsd:dateTime or the special value "infinity".)"
>
>What about the other special value "now"
>
>18) page 36: "All faults from a Grid service SHOULD either use this type 
>directly, or extensions of this type. "
>
>SHOULD --> MUST ? or can they choose another type also?
>
>19) In 9.2.3-9.2.4 also specify "now"
>
>20) page 47: 9.2.5 "MUST either initiate its own destruction and return a 
>response acknowledging "
>
>change "either" in "both"
>
>Sure that the SHOULD in "Once destruction of the Grid service is 
>initiated, the service SHOULD NOT respond successfully " is not a MUST ? .