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

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

        Paper would have been better with some insights into why
        certain choices were made (corba, kerberos, etc.), and how the
        HTML monitoring will be integrated with the custom corba clients,
        such as the production wizard.  Snippets of the XML workflow
        definition would have also been valuable / interesting to see,
        although I did find some by looking at the web page of
        reference 2 (which also had a better set of references).

F: Presentation Changes

    (minor) figure should be scaled down, which would make fonts sizes
                and line thicknesses more appropriate
    (needs to be fixed) the footnote 2 for DisCom is missing, and should
                probably be a reference (end note).


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

This paper discusses the DOE's ASCI project computational grid.  The paper
gives a brief (only 5 pages) description of initial deployment of the ASCI
Computational Grid.

One immediate question I had was: is this "the" ASCI Grid, i.e. is this
what all ASCI labs and level one Centers are using?  The discussion seemed
to discuss more of a possible grid deployment, rather than the "one and
only" ASCI Computational Grid?

There are few details in the paper and thus it is difficult to asses the
success of the initial deployment.  The authors note that November of 2001
will be a critical time when the ASCI grid will made available to users.
It would be great if the authors could update the current short description
with some initial results from users.

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

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor):
This paper has a lot of good information but I found it hard to read.  It
would help to have it broken into smaller sections with more detail.

F: Presentation Changes:

Need some background information about the DRM project.

section 2 paragraph 1
It should be made more clear that this is describing the level of the
architecture closest to the machine.

Figure 1 should be made more clear so that the user can clearly understand
how the following fit in and how they depend on eachother.

1 - Production Wizard
2 - Workflow Manager
3 - Resource Broker
4 - Information Service
5 - Monitoring Service

The terminology used in the text and on the figure should match.

The information is good... and pertinent, but it needs to be longer and more
detailed so that the reader can really understand what is being done.