Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I believe that consistency is important amongst all the IPFIX documents.
What Brian expressed "Given that 5102 predates all other 
(directly-IPFIX-related) references, and there's an IE in the IANA 
registry called flowIdleTimeout, I'd tend to go with "idle" for this 
one." is I believe the right way forward.
And Gerhard mentioned " We could change the name in the MIB and in 
ipfix-config if consistency is important."

So let me propose the following:
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10, in 
the RFC-editor queue:
     we could still change inactive to idle
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03, in the 
RFC-editor queue
     we could still change inactive to idle
- Editorial errata on RFC5472:
     "inactive" -> "idle"
     Potentially, an extra sentence such as: "note that the idle timeout 
is sometimes called the inactive timeout in the industry"
- http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.txt
     replace inactive by idle.

Any objections?

Regards, Benoit.
> Hi Benoit,
>
> The parameter was always called inactive timeout in IPFIX MIB. 
> ipfix-config changed from idleTimeout to inactiveTimeout in 
> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-02 to be consistent with the MIB.
>
> We could change the name in the MIB and in ipfix-config if consistency 
> is important.
>
> Gerhard
>
>
> On 10.04.2012 13:07, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Reading draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.txt, I realized that this 
>> draft defines two new terms: Active Timeout and Inactive Timeout.
>> I was thinking: surely, we have defined those terms already in some 
>> IPFIX RFCs.
>> Actually, I was unable to find any references.... Have I overlooked 
>> something?
>>
>> The only pointers I could find are in RFC5102
>>
>>
>>         5.11.1. flowActiveTimeout
>>
>>
>>     Description:
>>        The number of seconds after which an active Flow is timed out
>>        anyway, even if there is still a continuous flow of packets.
>>     Abstract Data Type: unsigned16
>>     ElementId: 36
>>     Status: current
>>     Units: seconds
>>
>>
>>         5.11.2. flowIdleTimeout
>>
>>
>>
>>     Description:
>>        A Flow is considered to be timed out if no packets belonging to
>>        the Flow have been observed for the number of seconds specified by
>>        this field.
>>     Abstract Data Type: unsigned16
>>     ElementId: 37
>>     Status: current
>>     Units: seconds
>>
>>
>>         5.11.3. flowEndReason
>>
>> Description:
>>        The reason for Flow termination.  The range of values includes the
>>        following:
>>
>>        0x01: idle timeout
>>              The Flow was terminated because it was considered to be
>>              idle.
>>
>>        0x02: active timeout
>>              The Flow was terminated for reporting purposes while it was
>>              still active, for example, after the maximum lifetime of
>>              unreported Flows was reached.
>>
>>        ...
>>
>> Here is one issue.
>> Some documents refer to inactive timeout
>>     RFC5472,
>>     ipfixMeteringProcessCacheInactiveTimeout in 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03
>>     inactiveTimeout in 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10
>> While some others refer to idle timeout
>>     RFC 5102,
>>     draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09
>>
>> Any proposal to fix this problem?
>>
>> Regards, Benoit (OPS A.D.)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix