Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60A621F84BF for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXu5+BFzkrVb for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7104821F8491 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AFE56503; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:22:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:19:51 -0700
Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:19:12 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:19:45 +0800
Message-ID: <3E7F70F6BF7A49EC834DD001A636D13E@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
References: <201204121143.q3CBhKgh034929@givry.fdupont.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:19:44 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-16.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:22:49 -0000

Hi,Francis:
Sorry for late reply. please see my repy inline.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francis Dupont" <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: <gen-art@ietf.org>rg>; <draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>
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?

> 
>>  [Qin]: Okay.
>>  > 
>>  > - 4.2 page 7: if the SSRC is an IPv4 address the "set to 0" is not very correct.
> 
> => the real problem is what is the SSRC. No spec is very clear, so the
> assumption it is not an IPv4 address is right IMHO. (i.e., I withdraw this comment)

[Qin]: Okay.
> 
>> Also it is easy to cause SSRC collision if IPv4 address can be
>>  choose as 0.0.0.0 which is broadcast address.
> 
> => BTW 0.0.0.0 is *never* a broadcast address (it could be the only address
> in this case :-).

[Qin]: Agree.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr