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

[Andrew Feren <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benoit, all,

No objection, however, given how common the term "inactive timeout" is 
in the industry that including a note like you suggested is probably 
worth doing.

-Andrew

On 04/18/2012 06:51 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix