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

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Fri, 13 April 2012 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 6CEC221F8675 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 c3EblTT+YqTJ for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDE121F8606 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3D9DvDB013527; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:13:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201204130913.q3D9DvDB013527@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:37:18 +0200. <4F87E5BE.3080100@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:13:57 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 09:14:05 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  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.
>
>  But, seriously "Feedback Implosion" is an established expression
>  within computer science. Thus although it may not be all correct we
>  shouldn't change it. I would recommend that you google "Feedback
>  Implosion" all the hits on the first page are related to computer
>  science, at least for me.

=> hum, it seems the incorrect use of the term implosion is well
established. IMHO it should be like the use of the incorrect term
encrypted, so should be handled the same way: to fix it is the right
way in French, in English it is pedantic so in general should not be
fixed (and this is a real example for RFCs).

So I give up on it...

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr