Re: [IPFIX] No active/inactive timeout definitions in any IPFIX RFCs? Idle versus inactive terminology? (part of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-09 review)
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Benoit, Good plan; no objection. P. On 18/04/12 11:51, 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix