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

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Francis Dupont" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>> 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  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>