Voice Message Routing Service
draft-ietf-vpim-routing-10

Review by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART:

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?

draft-ietf-vpim-vpimdir:

1. You really need to give IANA specific instructions in this section.
Please list all of the objects that need to have identifiers assigned.  If
IANA has to go digging through the document to interpret and find them, some
will be missed.  Make their job easy, please.

2. The reference for UTF-8 needs to be complete.  "RFC 3629" just isn't
enough.  Same format as was used for [CONTEXT], please.

draft-ietf-vpim-routing:

1. Same comment on the updated references.

2. Please add an IANA Considerations section.  It should say something like
"This document does not require any IANA actions." if there are no IANA
considerations.