Mass Update

Thanks to Cees de Laat for this new edited document, which
I have approved.  This is now published as GFD-49.

Sorry for the long delay with this.  Cees de Latt and I have
been spending a little time with this, and hope to get the
final edits applied soon.

Document has entered public comment. 

Correction below not should be now

This draft has completed the necessary steps prior to
being made available for public comment.  Authors, 
working group / research group chairs, and Area
Directors should encourage individuals to participate
in the public comment process and should announce
the public comment availability to appropriate
communities and groups.

Public comments can be viewed and submitted via
the GridForge Editor pages (see Forums) or:

http://www.ggf.org/documents

Public comments play an important part in the advancement
of a GGF draft and publication as a document in the 
GGF document series.

An active public comment period strengthens the case
that the document is a useful and desired work product
for some community of consumers.

Modified document was submitted by Karen via another tracker, but was not yet ready for public comment.  I corresponded by email, and hope to get a 
revised document shortly.

Thanks for this submission.  It is not quite ready for public comment, but I hope you will be able to respond to or address the following concerns, 
and submit a next iteration that will be ready for 30-day public comment.  Please use this tracker (or send email) if you have questions or concerns, 
or anything is unclear.  There are a number of comments below, some are large and some are small.  Overall, this document needs further attention from
 the author/editor to have better use of English and clearer organization.

Please send your next files in editable formats (.doc, .rtf, etc.).

Please use a spelling checker and grammar checker.  I identified a number of spelling & wording problems, but there are more.  

For authors, please consider whether to just list one or two Editors in the 1st page header, and move other contributors to a Contributor section.  Authors (or Editors) should be people with end-to-end responsibility for the document, today & for the future.

Check dates (Copyright 2002 should be 2004); make sure you have the current full copyright statement.

Spell out all acronyms on first use (OGSA).

Is OGSA truly the only focus of the RG's work?  Seems to me that the scope might be somewhat broader (i.e., any Grid-like service).

The footer should have the email of the primary author (see GFD-1).  

Section 1: check wording in "It is expected that in future ubiquitous networks that connection and interaction between devices,
systems,"

"In parallel to these developments,": you're missing the opening quotation mark for the quote in this paragraph.  "Application" is misspelled.

"Recently there have been a number of articles suggesting": why is "Peer-to-Peer" upper case here, but lower case elsewhere?  This uncertainty 
continues.  Please use one or the other (also "p2p" versus "P2P").

2.5 "Other issues"??

3. "per se" needs to be italicized (it's Latin).  "pc" should be "PC"

Under "Figure 1", you say "We describe the following use cases."  Really, though, aren't these just the linear steps in one use case?  It seems to me 
that you should talk about the steps in p2p use, rather than a separate use case for each step. This might require some wording changes elsewhere, but
 I think it would help the section to be clearer.  I have the same comment for the next section, under "Figure 2" and next under 4.b.

3.1.7: desktop client may "fail" not "fails"

3.2 why are "Users" and "System Directory" in caps?

3.3 "ref akamai" ??

"seem-less" should be "seamless"

Figures 4.a and 4.b should be 4 and 5 (number consecutively); adjust others as needed.  Refer to them with caps (i.e. 3.4.1. "Figure" not "figure")

Under 4.a: "We described de" ?

3.4.5. "groupo"

There are three tables under section 4 that make no sense to me.  They have 4.c., 4.c.1., 4.c.1, etc.  What are these?  They occur later, too.  If 
these are intended to be recommendations, please introduce them as such.  Then, they should be full sentences, not just fragments/outlines.

4.3 "optiona,"

Figure 4 (which needs to be renumbered, as mentioned) is low-resolution.  Can you make a print-ready graphic for this?  Ditto for Figure 5.

Section 7: "I don't think peer" ... huh?

Security considerations: you have two separate sections for this.  The latter can be dropped.

Author/contributor list: include a location (city/country) for each.

Glossary section "Recommended by not required."  Huh?

References 1-4 are not references.  They can just be cited in-text with a name and URL.  References are only for "documents" with persistence.  
Reference 5 needs a publication location.  I think the other references are complete.