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

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Benoit,

Sounds good to me.

Cheers,

Brian

On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:51 PM, 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