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 francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: perhaps we should ask the RFC Editor to produce a collective Errata to fix this misuse of implosion for explosion? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
