> 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.
[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
> => you have the choice between using the correct term or keeping the
> wrong term because some did the error in referenced documents.