This document is now in 7-day GFSG mailing list final call.

Per the April 24 standards council call, this document will go before the standards council on May 1 instead.  Then, the assembled GFSG will decide on
 it at the OGF20 f2f (May 6).  This  is just to move things along a little faster, due to OGF20.

The attached version corrects a naming inconsistency between document text and schema. The inconsistency was noticed and fixed by the document authors
 after the document entered final GFSG review. The review continues using the corrected version. The provenance of the correction can be traced on the
 GRAAP-WG mailing list.

The authors updated the document after public comment period. 
The document was in last call on the mailing list.
Document is now ready for final review.

Authors/editors: Please review the public comments.  If needed, upload another new document for final review.  

Changes were sent via email; they are attached here.

Thanks, Stephen.  We'll continue from this version on any further work.

The GFSG discussed this document during the September 26
conference call.  Based on the extent of public comments,
the GFSG would like to recommend a further public comment
period.  Because it has already been through 60-day comment,
we are suggesting a 30-day public comment period.

Further details sent to Jim. We'll wait to hear back before moving to the next step.

And now, without further ado, the editable version...

Attached is the proposed final version.  All comments from public comment period have been addressed.  The WG feels that this version is complete, and
 ready for publication.

Sent a ping to the author.

This document is now in 60-day public comment,
and will be due 60 days from public announcement.

The GFSG had some discussion echoing the other
comments in the tracker about the scope and
specificity of this document.  It seems that further
specs will be required for this spec to be fully
useful, but as a long document already the current
document seems to strike a good balance.  Thus,
the GFSG didn't recommend any specific changes
before public comment.  (These are my notes from
the discussion, so I hope I remember the 
sentiments correctly.)

I suggest this standard be named either
GS-Agreement or
GGF-Agreement
GGF desperately needs a clearer branding and our incoherent
labelling does not help
e.g. we have
GridFTP
DFDL
WS-Agreement
Info-D
OGSA-DAI
They should be clearly associated from name with GGF

I understand that WS-Agreement is not Grid specific; it is however GGF specific

Jim,

All of the following have later versions:

wsa	http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/addressing  
wsbf	http://www.ibm.com/xmlns/stdwip/web-services/WS-BaseFaults
wssg	http://www.ibm.com/xmlns/stdwip/web-services/WS-ServiceGroup  
wsrp	http://www.ibm.com/xmlns/stdwip/web-services/WS-ResourceProperties  

Addressing and the WSRF suite should be full standards by the end of the year. You should plan on two steps:

1) Check the current latest versions to make sure that there are no significant semantic changes in them that interfere with your spec. my guess is 
that you will be OK here.

2) Undertake to move to these specifications as soon as possibly, but preferably before going for proposaed recommendation.

Probably OK for public Comment. 

It is still a very complex specification and I have concerns about multiple implementations being created of it in its current form. This is 
particularly the case, as it is built on out dated versions of all its dependent specifications. I would recommend that the authors commit (if they 
have not already done so) to moving to the stable specifications when they become available.

Dear Author or Draft Editor-

Thank you for submitting your draft to the GGF Editor!  In most cases the draft 
will be assigned to an Area Director for review as the first step in the document 
publication process.

The URL provided with this note allows you to track your submission and to 
communicate with the GGF Editor or Area Director(s) who are reviewing the 
draft.  At the very bottom of the tracker display (web page) a detailed log of all 
actions related to this submission is available.

You may also wish to alert your colleagues that the draft has been submitted, and from their GridForge accounts they may wish to monitor this item in 
order to receive email any time action is taken regarding this submission.

Informational and Experimental drafts are reviewed by the GGF Editor and one 
or more Area Directors.  The GGF Editor will determine whether the draft is 
ready for public comment, or if there are items for the author(s) to address 
prior to public comment.  This initial review generally takes no more than two 
weeks.

Community Practice and Recommendations Track drafts require a GFSG review 
prior to public comment.  This can add 2-3 weeks to the initial GGF Editor 
review depending on current workload of the GFSG.

Please do not hesitate to inquire about the status of your submission at any time by way of comments added to this tracker item, which will be 
automatically emailed to the individual who appears in the "assigned to" field.

Thanks very much- 
GGF Editor