Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Westerlund" <
magnus.westerlund@...>
To: "Qin Wu" <
bill.wu@...>
Cc: "Francis Dupont" <
Francis.Dupont@...>; <
gen-art@...>; <
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@...>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt
> On 2012-04-13 10:19, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi,Francis:
>> Sorry for late reply. please see my repy inline.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Francis Dupont" <
Francis.Dupont@...>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <
bill.wu@...>
>> Cc: <
gen-art@...>; <
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@...>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt
>>
>>
>>> In your previous mail you wrote:
>>>
>>>> > - Abstract page 1: implosion -> explosion (things which can implode are rare :-)
>>>>
>>>> [Qin]: RFC4588 referenced by this document is using "implosion". So
>>>> I think it should be fine to use the same term in this document.:-)
>>>
>>> => RFC 2887 too. IMHO it is time to stop this "implosion" madness and
>>> to return to a correct language (BTW we have the same problem in French, for
>>> an unknown reason the word implosion is often used in place of explosion
>>> when it has the exact opposite meaning...).
>>
>> [Qin]:I can understand it is more sensitive to use "explosion" than "implosion"in France.:-)
>> However my understanding is implosion seems to mean feedback messages overwhelm the network capacity.
>> If we change "implosion" into "explosion", we seems to change the meaning of "feedback implosion",
>> that is to say, "feedback explision " means feedback message has already paralyzed the network. The Network dies :-).
>> I am aware that RFC4585 also use "feedback implosion". Since this draft references RFC4585,
>> Isn't draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp in accordance with RFC4585?
>
> I would like to point out that feedback implosion actually can be seen
> as an implosion event. All the feedback traffic generated are
> concentrated at the target for the feedback. Thus causing an implosion
> of the feedback target under the "weight" of all the feedback.
[Qin]: Exactly.
> But, seriously "Feedback Implosion" is an established expression within
> computer science. Thus although it may not be all correct we shouldn't
> change it.
[Qin]: Agree.
>I would recommend that you google "Feedback Implosion" all
> the hits on the first page are related to computer science, at least for me.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
magnus.westerlund@...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art