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

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)  
------------------------------
A strong paper generally.  A couple of questions I'd like to see 
addressed:
1) Is there any security for resources which are _not_ GSI-enabled?
2) Are there requirements for the administrative relationship of 
resources on which TENT may be effectively deployed?  It seems like a 
user might have to have the same moniker everywhere in order to use 
TENT, for instance.
3) Are there scaling issues with the naming service?
4) Where does the name TENT come from?

Typos:
factorie -> factories Section 2.1
whithout -> without Section 2.3

F: Presentation Changes

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

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)

The paper describes the CORBA-based simulation environment TENT, its
architecture and applications, as well as its integration with Globus,
and as such fits well within the topic range of this special issue of
CCP&E.

Figure 2 (Architectural overview) is not explicitly referenced 
anywhere in the paper.

I am missing a "State of the art" type of section, describing other
similar environments, though maybe, in a special issue like this, the
other papers will largely fill this in.

F: Presentation Changes

The quality of the figures generated from bitmaps (4, 5, 6, 9) is
definitely unsatisfactory: they are so blurred that it's virtually
impossible to see anything. Figure 7 contains a grey arrow plus text 
that only become apparent after looking twice.

While the language quality of the paper is good on average,
it does contain several typos and other language problems ("whithout",
"to simulate of the".  I would recommend that a native speaker 
proofreads it before it is resubmitted.

Also, aren't the sections/subsections supposed to be _not_ numbered?

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


E. Referee comments for author and editor:
This is a good example of component based grid computing.
Will be interested in seeing how the portals version evolves.
Also would like to know about the code portability...is it
available as a toolkit?

** Presentation - 4/5
     layout and flow of paper is good.
** Competence - 4/5
** Contribution - 4/5
** Originality - 4/5
** Strengths - 4/5