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