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

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
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix