I believe the new mechanism being proposed  for communication authentication and communication security requirements is 
counterproductive. Major industry players have already invested a lot of time in developing WS-SecurityPolicy (see WS-
SecurityPolicy 1.2 ,  http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200512) which is on a standards track in OASIS.
 This makes it unlikely you will find broad interest in developing or implementing the mechanism you propose. I also 
feel such a mechanism, which is specific to communication as part of an EPR, is too limiting. The flexibility to support
 other mechanisms such as WSDL, WS-MetadataExchange, etc. are important for broad adoption.

I therefore suggest you profile WS-SecurityPolicy for interoperability across the grid use cases of interest. This can 
include how it should be encoded within an EPR. I would also suggest the interop profile for communicating this 
information be in one document rather than having pieces spread over three different specs as in these drafts.