Referee 1 *******************************************

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)  ------------------------------

This is a very nice paper which needs just some fixes in its presentation. 
Some additional comments I would like to see addressed in the paper are:

	
Page 8: There seems to be a flaw with the Proxy Architecture in Netsolve allowing a denial
of service attack due to the lack of port protection with credentials or other methods.

Page 9: comment on exceptions, what is if DSI goes down?


Page 14: It is not clear if netsolve server is used per user, per compute center, ...... It
would be nice to be more precise with the usage scenario.

Page 15: Please rework the Performance model using the same latter P for the performance and
the given problem does not make me believe in your formula ;-)
Maybe you should use the Fox, et.al. book for a sample on how to chose your subscripts. Also
your performance work model introduces the constant workload which is unfortunately a
function over time. Thus it should probably be w(t). You need to motivate why that
performance model is sufficient for your system. It is definitely necessary to put a
reference to a thesis/paper/.... explaining why this model does work. Other performance
model could be averaging over time thus this culd be  _
             
There is another paper entitled "Netbuild" maybe a summary (1 page) of that work could be
included in this paper?

F: Presentation Changes

The use of "figure" in the text must be capitalized "Figure" do not abbreviate to Fig. (page
18)

The paragraph on page 6 needs clarification if integration of Condor and Legion has ben done
or not. Use of the word can is ambiguous. In case it has been done we need more details
about this.

Page 8 : Figure ???

Page 10: do not start sentences with a reference [15] discusses 

Page 14: The headline is not placed correctly. 

Page 18: add references to the nuclear engeneering section. Such as CENTS, MCNP, 


Referee 2 *******************************************

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)  

The description of the NetSolve has appeared in the literature many times. The current draft
does not add any significant new information about the system. Already, there are
alternatives to Netsolve. Some performance results must be added and NetSolve be compared to
other alternatives.

F: Presentation Changes

Can be significantly improved. Existing publications about Nesolve are superior to this
presentation.


Referee 3 *******************************************

E. Referee comments for author and editor:

The paper was concise, to the point, and fairly complete. It
needs some elaboration on security model/implementation: 
are sessions or connections encrypted, and how? Is Kerberos the 
only authentication used, if so, are there plans to integrate 
GSI (note: the term proxy is used with GSI/PKI authentication, 
so there is some slight confusion here).