In your previous mail you wrote:
> [Qin]:I can understand it is more sensitive to use "explosion" than
> "implosion" in France.:-)
=> both words exist in both language with the same spelling and
meaning. Perhaps do you mean we are more attached to use the right
term in France (:-)?
> However my understanding is implosion seems to mean feedback
> messages overwhelm the network capacity.
=> this is the definition of explosion.
> If we change "implosion" into "explosion", we seems to change the
> meaning of "feedback implosion", that is to say, "feedback
> explosion " 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?
=> you have the choice between using the correct term or keeping the
wrong term because some did the error in referenced documents.
You know my opinion.
Regards
Francis.Dupont@...
PS: perhaps we should ask the RFC Editor to produce a collective
Errata to fix this misuse of implosion for explosion?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
