Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis Dupont" <
Francis.Dupont@...>
To: "Qin Wu" <
bill.wu@...>
Cc: <
gen-art@...>; <
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@...>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt
> 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 (:-)?
[Qin]: Yes.:-)
>> However my understanding is implosion seems to mean feedback
>> messages overwhelm the network capacity.
>
> => this is the definition of explosion.
[Qin]: please refer to Magnus's feedback on this thread in a separate email.
>
>> 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.
[Qin]: Okay.
> You know my opinion.
[Qin]: Understand such ambiguity.
>
> 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
