* Review v26
	- Andrew reporting
	- Were the activity port type operations just added back in? <ASG> NO
		-- Maybe, need to re-look at this
		-- Do we just want to get rid of the first three operations on the activity?
			Vote, at least get rid of the first and third operations (GetStatus, and GetDocument operations)
		-- Does GetContainerAttributesDocument belong on the factory port type?
			Vote, majority says stay
		-- Perhaps, BES-Factory Port Type should be renamed.
			Vote, majority says not to change the name

		<ASG> Taken care of
	- Action Item:  Need to get rid of New
		-- in firgure 4, 5, 6
		<ASG> Done
	- Need volunteer to fill in 4.3
		-- Action Item:  Somebody from Microsoft will volunteer to do this
	- Action Item:  Tom Maguire to define faults
	- Action Item:  Need to capture the aggregation notion that Jay Brought up (wrt BES v. BR attributes)
	- Jay thinks we should ignore the hierarchical BES example, and work only on the heterogenous resources behind a BES container, after that, if we want, come back to the hierarchical case.
	- Needs to be discussed, but not now
		-- Let's get the document into public comment, do some interop, then we fix it before the final version goes to the editor.
	- Need to fix the TBD type for Naming Profile
		-- We should use the claim URIs from profiles
		-- Cardinality should be more then one
		<ASG> Done
	- We need to match names of Cancelled and Terminated (make it more consistent)
		-- 6.2.3, Action Item: Search for Cancelled and put Terminated
		-- We need to be more consistent in the naming of types (EPR, vs wsa:EndpointReferenceType).
		<ASG> Done - consistently terminated.
	- We need to add the two operations to the BES-Activity port type
		<ASG> I'm confused, the earler notes indicate get rid of them. that is the current state of the document.
	- We need a way of advertising what extensions are supported by the BES
		<ASG> done
	- Can we add this as a BES attriubte (list of 0 or more supported extensions)?
		Vote, yes, let's do that.
		<ASG> Done, new section 6.19
	- We shouldn't put JSDL extensions in the BES specification right?
		-- Vote, delete 8.3.1?  Yes, delete it (already done (was the Library extension))
		-- The Lifetime Management thing shouldn't be under JSDL section (Stephen moving).
		<ASG> Done
	- Need to update Intelectual property and headers and footers to say OGF (There is a new template out there somewhere)
		<ASG> Done
	- Should we change the namespace?
		-- Vote, we keep the namespace
	- Motion to take the container model out of the document
		-- Belief is that this section is useful, but has come too late in the process
		-- It should exist, but as a seperate, information document
		-- Doesn't belong in this document.
		-- Vote, yes take it out of the document.
		<ASG> Done

If we do the epsilons, can we push the document into last call.  The great majority (in fact, no dissenters) is YES!!!!