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]: Okay. > > > > - 4.2 page 7: if the SSRC is an IPv4 address the "set to 0" is not very > correct. => the real problem is what is the SSRC. No spec is very clear, so the assumption it is not an IPv4 address is right IMHO. (i.e., I withdraw this comment) > Also it is easy to cause SSRC collision if IPv4 address can be > choose as 0.0.0.0 which is broadcast address. => BTW 0.0.0.0 is *never* a broadcast address (it could be the only address in this case :-). Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
