diff --git a/proposals/2241-e2e-verification-in-dms.md b/proposals/2241-e2e-verification-in-dms.md
index 14b706dd..8f98ac2e 100644
--- a/proposals/2241-e2e-verification-in-dms.md
+++ b/proposals/2241-e2e-verification-in-dms.md
@@ -1,8 +1,15 @@
 # Key verification in DMs
 
 Currently, key verification is done using `to_device` messages.  However, since
-`to_device` messages are not part of a timeline, there is no user-visible record
-of the key verification.
+`to_device` messages are not part of a timeline, there is no user-visible
+record of the key verification.
+
+As well, the current key verification framework does not provide any feedback
+when interacting with clients that do not support it; if a client does not
+support the key verification framework, there is no way for users to discover
+this other than waiting for a while and noticing that nothing is happening.
+
+This proposal will solve both problems.
 
 ## Proposal
 
@@ -27,9 +34,27 @@ following properties in its contents:
 
 - `body`: a fallback message to alert users that their client does not support
   the key verification framework, and that they should use a different method
-  to verify keys
+  to verify keys.  The message should contain Bob's Matrix ID in order to
+  trigger a notification so that Bob's client will highlight the room for him,
+  making it easier for him to find it.  For example, "@bob:example.com: Alice
+  is requesting to verify keys with you.  However, your client does not support
+  this method, so you will need to use the legacy method of key verification."
+
+  Clients that do support the key verification framework should hide the body
+  and instead present the user with an interface to accept or reject the key
+  verification.
+
+  The event may also contain `format` and `formatted_body` properties as
+  described in the [m.room.message
+  msgtypes](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.5.0#m-room-message-msgtypes)
+  section of the spec.  Clients that support the key verification should
+  similarly hide these from the user.
 - `msgtype`: `m.key.verification.request`
 - `methods`: the verification methods supported by Alice's client
+- `to`: Bob's Matrix ID.  Users should only respond to verification requests if
+  they are named in this field.  Users who are not named in this field and who
+  did not send this event should ignore all other events that have a
+  `m.key.verification` relationship with this event.
 
 Key verifications will be identified by the event ID of the key verification
 request event.
@@ -67,7 +92,8 @@ event with the following properties in its contents:
 - `code`: The error code for why the process/request was cancelled by the
   user. The contents are the same as the `code` property of the currently
   defined [`m.key.verification.cancel` to-device
-  event](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.5.0#m-key-verification-cancel)
+  event](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.5.0#m-key-verification-cancel),
+  or as defined for specific key verification methods.
 
 This message may be sent at any point in the key verification process.  Any
 subsequent key verification messages relating to the same request are ignored.
@@ -95,8 +121,32 @@ property, as defined above, is used instead.
 
 ## Potential issues
 
+If a user wants to verify their own device, this will require the creation of a
+Direct Messaging room with themselves.
+
+Direct Messaging rooms could have end-to-end encryption enabled, and some
+clients can be configured to only send decryption keys to verified devices.
+Key verification messages should be granted an exception to this (so that
+decryption keys are sent to all of the target user's devices), or should be
+sent unencrypted, so that unverified devices will be able to be verified.
+
+Users might have multiple Direct Messaging rooms with other users.  In this
+case, clients will need to prompt the user to select the room in which they
+want to perform the verification.
 
 ## Security considerations
 
+Key verification is subject to the room's visibility settings, and may be
+visible to other users in the room.  However, key verification does not rely on
+secrecy, so this will no affect the security of the key verification.  This may
+reveal to others in the room that Alice and Bob know each other, but this is
+already revealed by the fact that they share a Direct Messaging room.
+
+This framework allows users to see what key verifications they have performed
+in the past.  However, since key verification messages are not secured, this
+should not be considered as authoritative.
 
 ## Conclusion
+
+By using room messages to perform key verification rather than `to_device`
+messages, the user experience of key verification can be improved.