Document: draft-ietf-vpim-routing-09.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Date: 1 mars 2005 


This draft is close to being ready for publication as Proposed
Standard. My only real complaint is that it has some rough spots that
detract from readability.

This document defines two mechanisms, and isn't consistent about
referring to each mechanism by name. I find this confusing when I see
sentences about "one mechanism" or "the other mechanism". It would be
clearer to name them early and use the names consistently. This shows
up most obviously in the Overview and the Abstract - if you read both
of them a few times, you "get it", but this could be a lot clearer.

It would also be nice if there was a clearer explanation of how to
decide which mechanism to implement and why. I'm understanding that
the "complete" mechanism is more reliable than the "basic" mechanism -
is this right? What are the other differences (all in one place)?

Is there any guidance the authors can give on avoiding the "malicious
redirection" danger referred to in section 3.1?