Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Westerlund" <[email protected]> To: "Qin Wu" <[email protected]> Cc: "Francis Dupont" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> >> To: "Qin Wu" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
