IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com> Sat, 14 April 2012 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <janovak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F38B21F857A for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wA89lo7m7xrj for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5A521F8576 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=345; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334437085; x=1335646685; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=oE0dKera1oZiklg08XKgpRIZEvV386rLhCHy9LyK/UU=; b=iefGzUL764J5tVY+9IaKujwq/Qvw1/634JUTTPIJFVHUSusHrSI34nXL kYmn6w2S7Qgeu/ufny+diDn75w2kgKts8pvVFl8+r5CEW8pY6GGpp3m0W Q36vP730Fuk4Gf1ivTWn3dQmKz6FepfofOPMJ7ndWqk4kcf17LLDWMf0R k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,423,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="135169103"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2012 20:58:04 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3EKw4NJ010414; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:58:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:58:04 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:58:03 +0200
Message-ID: <C95CC96B171AF24CA1BB6CA3C52D0BA001DD0537@XMB-AMS-212.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F841487.8090604@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
Thread-Index: Ac0XCi4AJ/m2p5GYTh+nYoKKfQEYjQDdrrYg
References: <4F841487.8090604@cisco.com>
From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, ipfix@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2012 20:58:04.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[495E69C0:01CD1A81]
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:58:06 -0000

>While some others refer to idle timeout
>RFC 5102, 
>draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09

I have checked (word searched) and there is no single
occurrence of word "idle" in draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09.
The terminology active/inactive seemed to be at least
historically most justified or we simply never used anything
else ...

Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email