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)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>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 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix