----- begin paper draft peer review template -----

Reviewer names:       <names of pair members>
Reviewer group #:     <number of group, see participant page>
Group # under review: <number of group under review>


Overall
=======

- On the usual grading scale (0-5), how would you grade this draft?
  What are the main merits (and demerits) resulting in your proposed
  grade?

- What are the few major improvements that could be done to improve
  the paper?

- Comment on the understandability of the paper: did you understand
  what was said?  (A paper should be understandable even if it's
  slightly off topic for you.)


Content
=======

- Is the vulnerability, the attack, the ramifications of the attack,
  and the defence against the attack *independently* understandable
  by reading the paper?  Remember that although the paper may (and
  probably should) cite the vulnerability reports, it must stand alone.


Structure
=========

- Is the structure of the paper easy to follow?

- What changes to the structure would you suggest to make the paper
  easier to read?  Specifically, what would have made it easier
  for you to understand the paper?


References
==========

- Are references valid and relevant?  Is there enough information
  to find them?

  Valid = the reference contains accurate, preferably reviewed matter

  Relevant = the reference is actually related to the topic at hand,
      i.e. contributes to the paper

- Are any areas covered in the paper missing references?
  (Even better, if you can point to a missing or a more well suited
  reference, please do.)


Language and other cosmetics
============================

- How good is the English in the paper?  Do you see any repeated
  errors?

- Are figures understandable?


Misc
====

- Any other comments to improve the quality of the paper?


----- end paper draft peer review template -----