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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 A4C1421F84AE for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 OQGw9RGMa5YX for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7B121F84A7 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-2d-4f87e5bf321b
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D1.75.25560.FB5E78F4; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:37:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:37:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4F87E5BE.3080100@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:37:18 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <201204121143.q3CBhKgh034929@givry.fdupont.fr> <3E7F70F6BF7A49EC834DD001A636D13E@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E7F70F6BF7A49EC834DD001A636D13E@china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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>
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 08:37:28 -0000

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" <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?

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.

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: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------