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

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 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 (:-)?

> However my understanding is implosion seems to mean feedback
> messages overwhelm the network capacity.

=> this is the definition of explosion.

>  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.
You know my opinion.

Regards

[e-mail]

PS: perhaps we should ask the RFC Editor to produce a collective
Errata to fix this misuse of implosion for explosion?