CoAP Option Extension: Patience
draft-li-core-coap-patience-option-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Kepeng Li , Bert Greevenbosch , Esko Dijk , Salvatore Loreto | ||
| Last updated | 2014-07-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-li-core-coap-patience-option-04
core K. Li
Internet-Draft B. Greevenbosch
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 5, 2015 E. Dijk
Philips Research
S. Loreto
Ericsson
July 04, 2014
CoAP Option Extension: Patience
draft-li-core-coap-patience-option-04
Abstract
CoAP is a RESTful application protocol for constrained nodes and
networks. This specification provides a simple extension for CoAP,
the Patience option. This option informs a recipient of the
preferred time frame for a request or response depending on usage
context. In a unicast request, it indicates the patience a client
has in waiting for a response. The CoAP server tries to return the
response within the specified time frame. In a multicast request, it
indicates the patience a server should have in sending its response.
The recipient would then try to randomly delay its response within
the time frame that the requester indicated or computed by the
recipient itself. In a CoAP observe notification, it indicates the
patience an observer should have in both waiting for a subsequent
notification and in re-establishing an observation relation.
Note
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should
be sent to core@ietf.org.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Patience Option Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Patience Option Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using the Patience Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Unicast usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Multicast usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Observe usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Detection of IP unicast or multicast CoAP request . . . . 7
3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Unicast Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Observe Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This specification adds a new option Patience to CoAP [RFC7252]. The
main purpose is for the requester to inform the recipient of the
preferred time frame for a response. In the unicast request case, it
is used to indicate the patience it has in waiting for a response.
It then indicates "a response is most useful within the specified
time frame". In the multicast request case, it indicates the
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
patience that a server should have in sending a response. In other
words, it indicates "if possible please delay your response by a
randomly chosen time within the specified time frame". A second
purpose is for use by a server when sending CoAP observe
[I-D.ietf-core-observe] notifications, to indicate the maximum time
an observer should wait (i.e. patience of the observer) before
starting any observation relationship recovery.
1.1. Justification
In the unicast case, it is useful for the requester (client) to
indicate that the response is required to be returned within a
certain amount of time. For example, the requester could require a
response within 2 seconds, otherwise the response is not of interest
anymore. With this indication of the patience for a response, the
requester knows how long it should wait for the response, and it
needs to keep the state of the request only for the indicated time.
After this period, the request will be given up. It can avoid that
the recipient wastes resources by sending a response which already
exceeds the set patience timeout of the requester.
In the multicast case, if a server decides to respond to a multicast
request, it should not respond immediately. Instead, it should pick
a duration for the period of time during which it intends to respond.
The length of this period is called the Leisure, and defined in
[RFC7252]. The same document specifies how to compute the a rough
lower bound for Leisure, as well as the DEFAULT_LEISURE. A Patience
option, if present, can be used as an upper bound for the Leisure,
i.e. the server SHOULD respond before the time frame indicated by
Patience has been exceeded.
In an observe scenario, it is useful for a server to indicate to an
observer that, after the period of time in the Max-Age option has
expired, a new notification will be sent within the time interval
indicated by the Patience option. The server may use this to send
notifications with a dithered delay i.e. randomly chosen within the
Patience-specified time interval, when there are many CoAP clients
simultaneously observing a resource on the server, avoiding network
congestion issues. Another use is for the server to delay sending a
new notification because e.g. the resource has not changed. The
observer in this case can assume that the server will do its best to
deliver a notification at least before the Patience time interval
runs out.
If the Patience option is combined with Observe option in a request,
currently it indicates the maximum time an observer is prepared to
wait for an initial notification.
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
1.2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Patience Option Extension
2.1. Patience Option Definition
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| No. | C | U | N | R | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
| 28 | | | x | | Patience | see below | 1 B | (none) |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+-----------+--------+---------+
The value carried in the Patience Option is in a specific format
resembling a pseudo-Floating Point value (as in
[I-D.bormann-coap-misc] Appendix B.2):
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T | TX|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
T = Time
TX = Time Exponent
where the patience time is calculated as:
Patience time = 2^(TX * 4 + 3) * T
The value of the Patience option is calculated in milliseconds or
alternatively mibiseconds (1/1024s) if this would ease numerical
operations on above values on constrained platforms. The minimum
non-zero patience time is 8ms, when TX=0, T=1 and a milliseconds time
base is used. The maximum patience time is then 2064384ms, around 34
minutes, when TX=3 and T=63.
The Patience option is "elective". It MUST NOT occur more than once.
2.2. Using the Patience Option
The semantics of the Patience Option depends on its usage context, as
detailed in below sections.
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
2.2.1. Unicast usage
In the unicast case, this option is used by a CoAP client to indicate
the maximum time a requester is prepared to wait for a response.
The requester adds the Patience option to any request for which it is
prepared to wait for a response. The requester sets the option to
the maximum time that it is prepared to wait.
The Patience option applies to both piggy-backed response and
separate response. For a separate response, the patience applies to
the actual response after the ACK. ACK should be sent immediately
upon receipt of the CON message.
TBD: In case a requester retransmits a request, the Patience Option
value MAY be decreased by an amount of time equivalent to the time
since the previous transmission attempt. In case a requester did not
receive an ACK to a confirmable request and a time interval of at
least the interval indicated in the Patience Option of the request
has passed, the requester SHOULD give up the request.
The recipient interprets this option as the maximum time between
receipt of the complete request and the time that it begins sending
the response. The requester will observe a longer time interval
between request and response, as network transit and processing by
proxies add delays. If timing is critical, the requester SHOULD
consider the possible delays and choose the value for the option
accordingly.
The recipient MAY apply a lower value to the patience timeout based
on local policy. A recipient MAY choose to take longer to produce a
response, at the risk that the requester is no longer able to use the
response.
In case that the CoAP message is transmitted through a proxy, the
Proxy MAY reduce the value of a Patience option based on a local
policy (e.g. to consider the maximum time that an idle connection is
kept open by a local NAT or Firewall). A Proxy MAY add a Patience
option if none is present. The value in the Patience option MUST NOT
be increased or removed.
If the requester does not receive a response within the indicated
response time, the requester SHOULD consider the request as failed.
If the recipient can't provide a response within the required time,
the recipient SHOULD discard the request.
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
2.2.2. Multicast usage
In the multicast case, Leisure is defined in [RFC7252] to work as a
duration for the period of time during which a server intends to
respond to a multicast request. The Patience option in a CoAP
request can be used as an upper bound for the Leisure.
How to use Leisure is defined in [RFC7252].
2.2.3. Observe usage
In a CoAP observe [I-D.ietf-core-observe] scenario, the Patience
Option MAY be used in a notification to indicate the maximum time an
observer should wait before starting any observation relationship
recovery.
The Max-Age Option indicates the maximum time a response
(notification) may be cached before it MUST be considered stale. The
Max-Age Option of a notification is usually set to a value that
estimates when the server will send the next notification. However,
in the case the value has not changed, the server can decide not to
send a new notification, possibly confusing the observer. It is
quite difficult for an observer to discriminate the situation that it
has not received a new notification because the value has not changed
from situations where the server has lost its state, or for some
reason has given up on notification delivery.
The Patience Option in a notification is used to indicate the maximum
time a server will try to reach the client before giving up. This is
to save the client some effort in re-establishing observation
relationships each time max-age is reached. This option is also
useful to give a server the time to send out the notifications, in
case there are many CoAP clients observing simultaneously a resource,
while avoiding network congestion issues.
The server adds the Patience option to any notification related to an
observation relationship from which it wants delay an observation
refresh request made by the observer. The server sets the option to
the maximum time that it is prepared to spend to reach the observer
before giving up.
The observer interprets this option as the minimum time between the
expiration of a notification (as indicated by its Max-Age Option
value) and the moment it MAY start an observation relationship
recovery action with the server.
If the observer does not receive a response within the indicated time
interval, the observer SHOULD attempt to re-establish the observation
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
relationship with the server if it is still interested in observing
the particular resource.
2.3. Detection of IP unicast or multicast CoAP request
A single Patience Option, used to indicate potentially either client
patience (in the IP unicast case) or server patience (in the IP
multicast case), requires that a CoAP server is able to distinguish
between IP unicast and multicast requests. If there exist commonly
used IP stacks that do not offer such functionality [to be checked],
requiring servers to be able to make the unicast/multicast
distinction seems unwise and limits the applicability of the Patience
Option.
Approaches for a CoAP server to detect unicast versus multicast
requests may include:
1) CoAP server application opens a specific socket and sets IP
multicast reception using the POSIX setsockopt function [to be
verified if IP unicast traffic also is received in this case, or
not].
2) CoAP server checks the IP destination address of incoming packets.
If this has the FF00::/8 IPv6 prefix, then it's treated as multicast
otherwise unicast [to be verified if IP stack APIs allow to get IP
destination].
3) Receiving CoAP multicast requests always occurs on a different
port than the standard CoAP port. For example, similar to coaps://
that uses a different port than coap://, a scheme coapm:// on a
different port may be defined for multicast requests.
3. Example
3.1. Unicast Usage Example
This section gives a short example with a message flow that
illustrates the use of the Patience option in a GET request.
This example (Figure 1) shows that the requester wants to get a
response within 3200 milliseconds, when T=25, TX=1.
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
requester recipient
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d38)
| GET | Token: 0x53
| | Patience: 25/1
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d38)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x53
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
Figure 1: Patience Option in a unicast request
3.2. Observe Usage Example
This section gives a short example with a message flow that
illustrates the use of the Patience option in an Observe
notification.
This example (Figure 2) shows that the server wants the observer to
wait 819 seconds (T=25, TX=3) before starting any observation
relationship recovery, even though the Max-Age of the temperature
value notification is only 120 seconds.
Observer Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d38)
| GET | Token: 0x53
| | Observe: 0
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d38)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x53
| | Max-Age: 120
| | Patience: 25/3
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
Figure 2: Patience Option in an observe notification
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
4. Security Considerations
This presents no security considerations beyond those in section 10
of the base CoAP specification [RFC7252].
5. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to add the following "CoAP Option Numbers"
entry as per Section 12.2 of [RFC7252].
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+---------------+--------+---------+
| No. | C | U | N | R | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+---------------+--------+---------+
| 28 | | | x | | Patience | (ref to this | 1 B | (none) |
| | | | | | | document) | | |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------+---------------+--------+---------+
6. Acknowledgements
The authors of this draft would like to thank the participants of the
email discussion on this issue. Thanks to Carsten Bormann, Peter
Bigot, Barry Leiba, Linyi Tian, Gengyu Wei for the reviews and
discussions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP", draft-ietf-
core-observe-13 (work in progress), April 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, June 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.bormann-coap-misc]
Bormann, C. and K. Hartke, "Miscellaneous additions to
CoAP", draft-bormann-coap-misc-26 (work in progress),
December 2013.
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP Patience Option July 2014
Authors' Addresses
Kepeng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P. R. China
Email: likepeng@huawei.com
Bert Greevenbosch
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P. R. China
Email: bert.greevenbosch@huawei.com
Esko Dijk
Philips Research
High Tech Campus 34
Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Email: esko.dijk@philips.com
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com
Li, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]