Trevor's Comments

Section E.2.8. Security requirements

"Owners should set permissions so that non-owners can add or modify files in a CSA."

...should be changed to...

"Owners should set permissions so that non-owners cannot add or modify files in a CSA."

Section E.2.10. Performance requirements

CSAs should perform 'as well as' software installed in an owners home directory and may perform better than that but may not perform as well as locally installed software (ie. local SSD or NVMe). The benefit of having CSA owners be able to manage their own software should outweigh the lower performance of local node installation.

Since SPs deploy vastly difference local and network attached filesystems making the performance requirement a 'should' may (is likely to) hinder participation by SPs. Accordingly, this should be changed to something like...

"SP's should document expected performance of CSAs in the CSA Feature User Description (text) field in the RDR entry."

Section E.2.13. Usage tracking

Minor typo...

"Do determine whether..."

...should be changed to...

"To determine whether..."

Section F.1. Component Level Design

In text...

"To enable users to discover software available in CSA the XUP and RSP software search functions will include software published from CSAs, and should display software support contact information in detailed software views."

Please clarify how information published for software provided in CSAs will be clearly differentiated from that provided on the SP resource.

Section G.1. Interfaces with other systems

In list "Existing interfaces that will be used as part of the CSA capability:" item number 2...

Please describe changes to IPF that will be required and/or link to XCI item that defines the changes required to differentiate module information published for CSAs from that published for the SP resource.