1. No relationship to XML Base [1] is defined as of yet in Framework. As issue has been raised on this with the WG [2].

2. Policy Assertion (3.1)
- The definition of policy assertion appears to be redundant. 
- The style of artefact definition appears a bit cumbersome ("[Definition: An ignorable policy assertion is ...]"). As is these definitions appear to be placeholders. In their place text could be written that flows better, e.g. the second paragraph of 3.1 could be written as: "An assertion MAY indicate that it is an ignorable policy assertion (see 4.4 Ignorable Policy Assertions). An ignorable policy assertion is one that may be ignored for policy intersection (as defined in 4.5 Policy Intersection). By default, an assertion is not ignorable for policy intersection."

3. Policy Alternative (3.2)
- The definition of policy alternative needs some elaboration (e.g. "A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection of policy assertions which are used indicate an available set of behaviors."). As is it doesn't lay out well what alternatives actually are before delving into their semantics. The same approach can be applied to 3.3 Policy.
- It is suggested that "(i) Normal form of a policy expression (ii) Compact form of a policy expression (iii) Identification of policy expressions and (iv) Policy intersection" be reordered to read "(i) Normal form of a policy expression (ii) Identification of policy expressions (iii) Compact form of a policy expression and (iv) Policy intersection."

4. Policy Identification (4.1)
- Some additional clarification may be needed around the use of xml:id in the Framework, as in associating a policy expression with the IRI-reference.

5. Compact Policy Expression
- Document Information Item should reference its definition in XML Infoset [3], as does Element Information Item [4].

6. Policy Assertion Nesting (4.3.2)
- A nested policy in normal form has the same structure as the enclosing policy. However, the example in this section does not reflect this. An issue has been raised with the WG and a resolution proposed [5]. 

7. Security Considerations (5)
- Policy/assertion "signing" is RECOMMENDED but there is no reference to what is indicated by "signing" or to any standards work (W3C or other) around any such signing. Does this refer to WSS signatures [6]? The use of "signing" itself in this language should reference any such standard(s). 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0022.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.document
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.element
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0034.html
[6] http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message-security-1.0.pdf