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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 09:21 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 745F821F8793 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, 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 4tjV7p6jMupo for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD84E21F8786 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AFE59654; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:18:44 -0700
Received: from SZXEML420-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.159) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 02:18:13 -0700
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml420-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:18:44 +0800
Message-ID: <7F3265D310AF4AC499672FD504930FAC@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
References: <201204130906.q3D96t6a013105@givry.fdupont.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:18:43 +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 09:21:25 -0000

Hi,
----- 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: 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
> 
> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
> 
> PS: perhaps we should ask the RFC Editor to produce a collective
> Errata to fix this misuse of implosion for explosion?