Skip to main content

CoRE Resource Directory Extensions

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Christian Amsüss
Last updated 2023-10-23
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
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)
CoRE                                                           C. Amsüss
Internet-Draft                                           23 October 2023
Intended status: Experimental                                           
Expires: 25 April 2024

                   CoRE Resource Directory Extensions


   A collection of extensions to the Resource Directory [rfc9176] that
   can stand on their own, and have no clear future in specification

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Constrained RESTful
   Environments Working Group mailing list (, which is
   archived at

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at

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

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 April 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (
   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Reverse Proxy requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Registration updates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Proxy behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.3.1.  Limitations from using a reverse proxy  . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  On-Demand proxying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.5.  Multiple upstreams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.6.1.  Registration through a firewall . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.6.2.  Registration from a browser context . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.7.  Notes on stability and maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.8.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.9.  Alternatives to be explored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Infinite lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Limited lifetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Lookup across link relations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Lifetime Age  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Zone identifier introspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Proxying multicast requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Opportunistic RD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Registrations that update DNS records . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. Propagating server generated registration information . . . .  18
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

1.  Introduction

   This document pools some extensions to the Resource Directory
   [rfc9176] that might be useful but have no place in the original

   They might become individual documents for IETF submission, simple
   registrations in the RD Parameter Registry at IANA, or grow into a
   shape where they can be submitted as a collection of tools.

   At its current state, this draft is a collection of ideas.

2.  Reverse Proxy requests

   When a registrant registers at a Resource Directory, it might not
   have a suitable address it can use as a base address.  Typical
   reasons include being inside a NAT without control over port
   forwarding, or only being able to open outgoing connections (as
   program running inside a web browser utilizing CoAP over WebSocket
   [RFC8323] might be).

   [rfc9176] suggests (in the Cellular M2M use case) that proxy access
   to such endpoints can be provided, it gives no concrete mechanism to
   do that; this is such a mechanism.

   This mechanism is intended to be a last-resort option to provide
   connectivity.  Where possible, direct connections are preferred.
   Before registering for proxying, the registrant should attempt to
   obtain a publicly available port, for example using PCP ([RFC6887]).

   The same mechanism can also be employed by registrants that want to
   conceal their network address from its clients.

   A deployed application where this is implicitly done is LwM2M
   [citation missing].  Notable differences are that the protocol used
   between the client and the proxying RD is not CoAP but application
   specific, and that the RD (depending on some configuration) eagerly
   populates its proxy caches by sending requests and starting
   observations at registration time.

2.1.  Discovery

   An RD that provides proxying functionality advertises it by
   announcing the additional resource type "TBD1" on its directory

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

2.2.  Registration

   A client passes the "proxy=yes" or "proxy=ondemand" query parameter
   in addition to (but typically instead of) a "base" query parameter.

   A server that receives a "proxy=yes" query parameter in a
   registration (or receives "proxy=ondemand" and decides it needs to
   proxy) MUST come up with a "Proxy URL" on which it accepts requests,
   and which it uses as a Registration Base URI for lookups on the
   present registration.

   The Proxy URL SHOULD have no path component, as acting as a reverse
   proxy in such a scenario means that any relative references in all
   representations that are proxied must be recognized and possibly

   The RD MAY accept connections also on alternative Registration Base
   URIs using different protocols; it can advertise them using the
   mechanisms of [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication].

   The registrant is not informed of the chosen public name by the RD.
   (Section 11 discusses means how to change that).

   This mechanism is applicable to all transports that can be used to
   register.  If proxying is active, the restrictions on when the base
   parameter needs to be present ([rfc9176] Registration template) are
   relaxed: The base parameter may also be absent if the connection
   originates from an ephemeral port, as long as the underlying protocol
   supports role reversal, and link-local IPv6 addresses may be used
   without any concerns of expressibility.

   If the client uses the role reversal rule relaxation, both it and the
   server keep that connection open for as long as it wants to be
   reachable.  When the connection terminates, the RD SHOULD treat the
   registration as having timed out (even if its lifetime has not been
   exceeded) and MAY eventually remove the registration.  It is yet to
   be decided whether the RD's announced ability to do proxying should
   imply that infinite lifetimes are necessarily supported for such
   registrations; at least, it is RECOMMENDED.

2.2.1.  Registration updates

   The "proxy" query parameter can not be changed or repeated in a
   registration update; RD servers MUST answer 4.00 Bad Request to any
   registration update that has a "proxy" query parameter.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   As always, registration updates can explicitly or implicitly update
   the Registration Base URI.  In proxied registrations, those changes
   are not propagated to lookup, but do change the forwarding address of
   the proxy.

   For example, if a registration is established over TCP, an update can
   come along in a new TCP connection.  Starting then, proxied requests
   are forwarded along that new connection.

2.3.  Proxy behavior

   The RD operates as a reverse-proxy as described in [RFC7252]
   Section 5.7.3 at the announced Proxy URL(s), where it decides based
   on the requested host and port to which registrant endpoint to
   forward the request.

   The address the incoming request are forwarded to is the base address
   of the registration.  If an explicit "base" paremter is given, the RD
   will forward requests to that location.  Otherwise, it forwards to
   the registration's source address (which is the implied base

   When an implicit base is used, the requests forwarded by the RD to
   the EP contain no Uri-Host option.  EPs that want to run multiple
   parallel registrations (especially gateway-like devices) can either
   open up separate connections, or use an additional (to-be-specified)
   mechanism to set the "virtual host name" for that registration in a
   separate argument.

2.3.1.  Limitations from using a reverse proxy

   The registrant requesting the reverse proxying needs to ensure that
   all services it provides are compatible with being operated behind a
   reverse proxy with an unknown name.  In particular, this rules out
   all applications that refer to local resources by a full URI (as
   opposed to relative references without scheme and host).
   Applications behind a reverse proxy can not use role reversal.

   Some of these limitations can be mitigated if the application knows
   its advertised address.  The mechanisms of Section 11 might be used
   to change that.

2.4.  On-Demand proxying

   If an endpoint is deployed in an unknown network, it might not know
   whether it is behind a NAT that would require it to configure an
   explicit base address, and ask the RD to assist by proxying if
   necessary by registering with the "proxy=ondemand" query parameter.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   A server receiving that SHOULD use a different IP address to try to
   access the registrant's .well-known/core file using a GET request
   under the Registration Base URI.  If that succeeds, it may assume
   that no NAT is present, and ignore the proxying request.  Otherwise,
   it configures proxying as if "proxy=yes" were requested.

   Note that this is only a heuristic [ and not tested in deployments
   yet ].

2.5.  Multiple upstreams

   When a proxying RD is operating behind a router that has uplinks with
   multiple provisioning domains (see [RFC7556]) or a similar setup, it
   MAY mint multiple addresses that are reachable on the respective
   provisioning domains.  When possible, it is preferred to keep the
   number of URIs handed out low (avoiding URI aliasing); this can be
   achieved by announcing both the proxy's public addresses under the
   same wildcard name.

   If RDs are announced by the uplinks using RDAO, the proxy may use the
   methods of [I-D.amsuess-core-rd-replication] to distribute its
   registrations to all the announced upstream RDs.

   In such setups, the router can forward the upstream RDs using the PvD
   option ([RFC8801]) to PvD-aware hosts and only announce the local RD
   to PvD-unaware ones (which then forwards their registrations).  It
   can be expected that PvD-aware endpoints are capable of registering
   with multiple RDs simultaneously.

2.6.  Examples

2.6.1.  Registration through a firewall

   Req from [2001:db8:42::9876]:5683:
   POST coap://

   Req from
   GET coap://[2001:db8:42::9876]/.well-known/core

   Request blocked by stateful firewall around [2001:db8:42::]

   RD decides that proxying is necessary

   Res: 2.04 Created
   Location: /reg/abcd

   Later, lookup of that registration might say:

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   Req: GET coap://

   Res: 2.05 Content

   A request to that resource will end up at an IP address of the RD,
   which will forward it using its the IP and port on which the
   registrant had registered as source port, thus reaching the
   registrant through the stateful firewall.

2.6.2.  Registration from a browser context

   Req: POST coaps+ws://

   Res: 2.04 Created
   Location: /reg/123

   The gyroscope can now not only be looked up in the RD, but also be

   Req: GET coap://

   Res: 2.05 Content

   In this example, the RD has chosen to do port-based rather than host-
   based virtual hosting and announces its literal IP address as that
   allows clients to not send the lengthy Uri-Host option with all

2.7.  Notes on stability and maturity

   Using this with UDP can be quite fragile; the author only draws on
   own experience that this can work across cell-phone NATs and does not
   claim that this will work over generic firewalls.

   [ It may make sense to have the example as TCP right away. ]

2.8.  Security considerations

   An RD MAY impose additional restrictions on which endpoints can
   register for proxying, and thus respond 4.01 Unauthorized to request
   that would pass had they not requested proxying.

   Attackers could do third party registrations with an attacked
   device's address as base URI, though the RD would probably not
   amplify any attacks in that case.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   The RD MUST NOT reveal the address at which it reaches the registrant
   except for adaequately authenticated and authorized debugging
   purposes, as that address could reveal sensitive location data the
   registrant may wish to hide by using a proxy.

   Usual caveats for proxies apply.

2.9.  Alternatives to be explored

   With the mechanisms of [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication], an RD
   could also operate as a forward proxy, and indicate its availability
   for that purpose in a has-proxy link it creates on its own, and which
   it makes discoverable through its lookup interfaces.

   How a registrant opts in to that behavior, how it selects a suitable
   public address (using the base attribute is tempting, but conflicts
   with the currently prescribed proxy behavior) and for which scenarios
   this is preferable is a topic being explored.

   As with the reverse proxy address, the registrant is not informed of
   the public addresses (though again, Section 11 can be used to change
   that).  Knowing these addresses can be relevant when the endpoint
   advertises its services out of band (e.g. by showing a QR code or
   exposing links through NFC), but also when the mechanism of
   [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication] Appendix D is used.

3.  Infinite lifetime

   An RD can indicate support for infinite lifetimes by adding the
   resoruce type "TBD2" to its list of resource types.

   A registrant that wishes to keep its registration alive indefinitely
   can set the lifetime value as "lt=inf".

   Registrations with infinite lifetimes never time out.  Unlike regular
   registrations, they are not "soft state"; the registrant can expect
   the RD to persist the registrations across network changes, reboots,
   softare updates and that like.

   Typical use cases for infinite life times are:

   *  Commissioning tools (CTs) that do not return to the deployment
      site, and thus can not refresh the soft state

   *  Proxy registrations whose lifetime is limited by a connection that
      is kept alive

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

3.1.  Example

   Had the example of Section 2.6.2 discovered support for infinite
   lifetimes during lookup like this:

   Req: GET coaps+ws://*

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </rd>;rt="core.rd TBD1 TBD2";ct=40

   it could register like that:

   Req: POST coaps+ws://

   Res: 2.04 Created
   Location: /reg/123

   and never need to update the registration for as long as the
   websocket connection is open.

   (When it gets terminated, it could try renewing the registration, but
   needs to be prepared for the RD to already have removed the original

4.  Limited lifetimes

   Even if an RD supports infinite lifetimes, it may not accept them
   from just any registrant.  Even more, an RD may have policies in
   place that require a certain frequency of updates and thus place an
   upper limit on lt lower than the technical limit of 136 years.

   This document does not define any means of communicating lifetime
   limits, but explores a few options:

   *  Administrative channels.

      An RD that sees registrations with unreasonably long lifetimes can
      flag them for its operator to take further measures.

      While sounding tediously manual, this captures the observation
      that different components are configured in a softly incompatible
      way, and need operator intervention (because if there were
      automatic means, they obviously failed).

   *  General advertisement of preferred lifetimes.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

      When the limitations on the lifetimes are not from authorization
      but from general setup, an RD could advertise that property in a
      to-be-created link target attribute of its registration resource.
      Different attributes could express preference or hard limits.

      This information is also available easily for registrants, which
      may then heed the advice if supported, and may notify their
      operators that they just started spending more resources than they
      were configured to.

      It is also available to tools that provision endpoints with their
      RD address (and parameters), as they can use the same lookup

   *  Per-registration information.

      For soft limits, the RD can offer the endpoint additional metadata
      if it queries them post-registration.  That query can use the
      endpoint lookup interface, or the extension of Section 11.  This
      may require additional round-trips on the part of endpoint.

   *  Hard limits informed by error codes.

      An RD can reject registrations with overly long lifetimes if the
      endpoint is not authorized to use such long lifetimes with a 4.01
      Unauthorized error.  The mechanisms of [RFC9290], with a to-be-
      defined error detail on the permissible lifetime, can be used to
      propagate information back to then endpoint.

      This behavior is explicitly NOT RECOMMENDED, because devices may
      crucially depend on the RD's services -- this rejection may even
      be the reason why the device is not configured with the new
      settings that would contain a shorter lifetime.

5.  Lookup across link relations

   Resource lookup occasionally needs execute multiple queries to follow

   An RD server (or any other server that supports [RFC6690] compatible
   lookup), can announce support for following links in resource lookups
   by announcing support for the TBD3 interface type on its resource

   A client can the query that server to not only provide the matched
   links, but also links that are reachable over relations given in
   "follow" query parameters.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

5.1.  Example

   Assume a node presents the following data in its <.well-known/core>
   resource (and submitted the same to the RD):


   A lookup client can, in one query, find the temperature sensor and
   its relevant metadata:

Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=example.temperature&follow=calibration-protocol&follow=describedby


   [ There is a better example (
   issues/120#issuecomment-407997786) in an earlier stage of
   [I-D.tiloca-core-oscore-discovery] ]

   Given the likelihood of a CoRAL based successor to [RFC6690], this
   lookup variant might easily be superseeded by a CoRAL FETCH format;
   it might look like this there:

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   Req: FETCH /reef-lookup
   Content-Format: application/template-coral+cbor
   #using core = <...>
   #using reef = <...>
   reef:content ?x {
     core:rt "example.temperature"
     calibration-protocol ?y {
       core:describedby ?z

   Res: 2.01 Content
   Content-Format: aplication/coral+cbor
   reef:content <coap://node1/temp> {
       core:rt "example.temperature"
       calibration-protocol <coap://node1/t-prot> {
         core:describedby <>

6.  Lifetime Age

   This extension is described in [I-D.amsuess-core-rd-replication]
   Section 5.2.

   The "provenance" extension in Section 5.1 of the same document should
   probably be expressed differently to avoid using non-target link

7.  Zone identifier introspection

   The 'split-horizon' mechanism of [rfc9176] (that registrations with
   link-local bases can only be read from the zone they registered on)
   reduces the usability of the endpoint lookup interface for debugging

   To allow an administrator to read out the "show-zone-id" query
   parameter for endpoint and resource lookup is introduced.

   A Resource Directory that understands this parameter MUST NOT limit
   lookup results to registrations from the lookup's zone, and MUST use
   [RFC6874] zone identifiers to annotate which zone those registrations
   are valid on.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   The RD MUST limit such requests to authenticated and authorized
   debugging requests, as registrants may rely on the RD to keep their
   presence secret from other links.

7.1.  Example

Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?show-zone-id&et=printer

Res: 2.05 Content

8.  Proxying multicast requests

   Multicast requests are hard to forward at a proxy: Even if a media
   type is used in which multiple responses can be aggregated
   transparently, the proxy can not reliably know when all responses
   have come in.  [RFC7390] Section 2.9 describes the difficulties in
   more detail.

   Note that [I-D.tiloca-core-groupcomm-proxy] provides a mechanism that
   _does_ allow the forwarding of multicast requests.  It is yet to be
   determined what the respective pros and cons are.  Conversely, that
   lookup mechanism may also serve as an alternative to resource lookup
   on an RD.

   A proxy MAY expose an interface compatible with the RD lookup
   interface, which SHOULD be advertised by a link to it that indicates
   the resource types core.rd-lookup-res and TBD4.

   The proxy sends multicast requests to All CoAP Nodes ([RFC7252]
   Section 12.8) requesting their .well-known/core files either eagerly
   (ie. in regular intervals independent of queries) or on demand (in
   which case it SHOULD limit the results by applying [RFC6690] query
   filtering; if it has received multiple query parameters it should
   forward the one it deems most likely to limit the results, as .well-
   known/core only supports a single query parameter).

   In comparison to classical RD operation, this RD behaves roughly as
   if it had received a simple registration with a All CoAP Nodes
   address as the source address, if such behavior were specified.  The
   individual registrations that result from this neither have an
   explicit registration resource nor an explicit endpoint name; given
   that the endpoint lookup interface is not present on such proxies,
   neither can be queried.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   Clients that would intend to do run a multicast discovery operation
   behind the proxy can then instead query that resource lookup
   interface.  They SHOULD use observation on lookups, as an on-demand
   implementation MAY return the first result before others have
   arrived, or MAY even return an empty link set immediately.

8.1.  Example

   Req: GET coap+ws://

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </discover>;rt="core.rd-lookup-res TBD4";ct=40

   Req: GET coap+ws://
   Observe: 0

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Observe: 0
   Content-Format: 40
   (empty payload)

   At the same time, the proxy sends out multicast requests on its

   Req: GET coap://ff05::fd/.well-known/core?rt=core.s

   Res (from [2001:db8::1]:5683): 2.05 Content
   </temp>;ct="0 112";rt="core.s"

   Res (from [2001:db8::2]:5683): 2.05 Content
   </light>;ct="0 112";rt="core.s"

   upon receipt of which it sends out a notification to the websocket

Res: 2.05 Content
Observe: 1
Content-Format: 40
<coap://[2001:db8::1]/temp>;ct="0 112";rt="core.s";anchor="coap://[2001:db8::1]",
<coap://[2001:db8::2]/light>;ct="0 112";rt="core.s";anchro="coap://[2001:db8::2]"

9.  Opportunistic RD

   An application that wants to advertise its resources in Resource
   Directory can find itself in a network that has no RD deployed.  It
   may be able to start an RD on its own to fill in that gap until an
   explicitly configured one gets installed.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   This bears the risk of having competing RDs on the same network,
   where resources registered at one can not be discovered on the other.
   To mitigate that, such Opportunistic Resource Directories should
   follow those steps:

   *  The RD chooses its own Opportunistic Capability value.  That
      integer number is an estimate of number of target attributes it
      expects to be able to store, where in absence of better estimates
      one would assume that a registration contains 16 links, and each
      links contains three target attributes each with an eight byte key
      and a 16 byte value.

      The Opportunistic Capability value is advertised as a TBD5-cap=
      target attribute on the registration resource.

   *  The RD chooses its own Opportunistic Tie-Break value.  That
      integer number needs no other properties than being likely to be
      different even for two instances of the same device being started;
      numeric forms of MAC addresses or random numbers make good

      The Opportunistic Capability value is advertised as a TBD5-tie=
      target attribute on the registration resource.

   *  The Opportunistic RD, before advertising its resources, performs
      RD discovery itself, using at least all the discovery paths it may
      become discoverable on itself.

   *  If the Opportunistic RD finds no other RD, or if the RD it finds
      is less capable than itself, it can start advertising itself as a
      Resource Directory.

      An RD is called more capable than another if its TBD5-cap value is
      greater than the other's, or if its TBD5-tie value is greater than
      the other's if the former results in a tie.  Absent or unparsable
      attributes are considered greater than any present attribute.

      In case an RD observes a tie even after evaluating the tie
      breaker, it may change its Opportunistic Tie-Break value if that
      was picked randomly, or reevaluate its life choices if it uses its
      own MAC address.

   *  A running Opportunistic RD needs to perform discovery for other
      RDs repeatedly.  If it discovers a more capable RD, it stops
      advertising its own resources.  It should continue to serve lookup
      requests, but refuse any new registration or registration updates
      (which will trigger the registrant endpoints to look for a new

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

      An inactive Opportunistic RD will be notified of the highter
      capability RD's shutdown by the expiry of whatever it may be
      started to advertise that was now advertised there; see below for
      possible improvements.

   *  An RD that discovers an Opportunistic RD of lower capability may
      speed up the transition process by (not mutually exclusive) two

      -  It can register its own (registration) resource(s) into the
         lower capability directory.  That RD can take that as having
         discovered a higher capability RD and stop advertising.

      -  It can expose resources and registrations of the lower
         capability directory using the methods described in

   *  An Opportunistic RD that yields to a more capable RD may ease the
      transition by attempting to register its active registrations at
      the more capable RD, taking the role of a CT.  The lifetimes
      picked for those must not exceed the remaining lifetime of its
      registrations, and it must not renew those registrations.

   Future iterations of this document may want to cut down on the
   possibilities listed above.

   Some ideas are around for making the shutdown of a commissioned or
   otherwise high-capability RD more graceful, but they still have some

   *  Setting a commissioned or high-capability RD's Capability to zero
      in preparation of the shutdown may create loops in any distributed

   *  Asking the lower capability RD to register its registration
      resource (even though not otherwise advertised) at the higher
      capability RD still creates a situation where clients may find two
      RDs running simultaneously, and we can't expect clients to make
      any decisions based on TBD5 values.

   *  Asking the higher capability RD to register its registration
      resource with the lower capability RD contradicts the current
      recommendation for the passive Opportunistic RD to not accept
      registrations / renewals.  Also, the deployed RD may not know that
      Opportunistic RDs are a thing.

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   *  Advertising an almost-but-not-quite rt= value on passive
      registration resources may be an option, but needs to be thought
      through thoroughly.

   Installations of Opportunistic RDs are at special risk of resource
   exhaustion because they are not sized with their actual deployment in
   mind, but rely on defaults set by the application that starts the RD.
   Opportunistic RDs should only be started if the application's
   administrator can be informed in a timely fashion when the RD's
   resources are nearing exhaustion; guidance towards installing a more
   capable RD on the network should be provided in that case.

9.1.  Applications

   *  Group managers using [I-D.tiloca-core-oscore-discovery] can ship
      its own low-priority Opportunistic RD to announce its join
      resources.  This provides benefits over announcing them on
      multicast discovery if the network can efficiently route requests
      to the All CoAP Resource Directories multicast address (so group
      members get a response back from an early focused request to all
      RDs rather than falling back to multicasting All CoAP Nodes for
      ?rt=osc.j&...), or if discovery of the group's multicast address
      is used.

   *  Administrative tools that try to provide a broad overview of a
      network's CoAP devices could offer to open an Opportunistic RD if
      they find no active RD on the network (but should ask the user in
      interactive scenarios).

      That allows them to see devices that newly join the network
      quickly (by observing their own or the found RD), rather than
      relying periodic multicasts.

10.  Registrations that update DNS records

   An RD that is provisioned with means to update a DNS zone and that
   has a known mapping from registrants to host names could use
   registrations to populate DNS records from registration base

   When combined with Section 2, these records point to the RD's built-
   in proxy rather than to the base address.

   This mechanism is not described in further detail yet as it does not
   interact well yet with how the base registration attribute interacts
   with the proxy announcements of [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication].

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

11.  Propagating server generated registration information

   The RD can populate some data into the registration: The RD may pick
   the sector and endpoint name based on the endpoint's credentials, or
   (as introduced in this documents) reverse proxy names and soft
   lifetime limits can be added.

   With the exception of sector and endpoint name, the registrant can
   query those properties through the endpoint lookup interface.
   However, this is cumbersome as it requires it to use both the
   registration and the lookup interface.

   The architecture of [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub] offers a different
   architectural setup: Applied to the RD, the registration would
   generate both a registration metadata resource (at which the
   registrant can set or query its registration's metadata) and a
   registration link resource (which contains all the links the
   registrant provides).  Such a setup would make it easier for
   registrants to query or update registration metadata, including
   querying for an implicitly assigned endpoint name or sector.

   Extending the RD specification to allow this style of operation would
   be possible without altering its client facing interfaces.
   Alternatively, using a new media type for operations on the
   registration resource and/or the FETCH and PATCH methods would enable
   such operations in a less intrusive way.  While it would be tempting
   to add an Accept option to the registration request to solicit
   immediate information on the registration that was just created, the
   Accept option's criticality would render this incompatible with
   existing servers.  The option can still be set if the new content
   format is advertised by the RD.

   Without any media type suggested so far, this is what a registration
   could look like if the RD advertised that it provided content format
   TBD6 on the registration interface:

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   Req from [2001:db8::1]:5683:
   POST coap://
   Accept: TBD6

   Res: 2.04 Created
   Location: /reg/abcd
   Content-Format: TBD6
   Soft lifetime limit 3600, please update your registration in time.
   Forward proxy services are offered at coaps+ws:// and

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

              Amsüss, C., "Resource Directory Replication", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-amsuess-core-rd-
              replication-02, 11 March 2019,

   [RFC6874]  Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
              IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
              Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, DOI 10.17487/RFC6874,
              February 2013, <>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [rfc9176]  Amsüss, C., Ed., Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and
              P. van der Stok, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
              Resource Directory", RFC 9176, DOI 10.17487/RFC9176, April
              2022, <>.

12.2.  Informative References

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

              Jimenez, J., Koster, M., and A. Keränen, "A publish-
              subscribe architecture for the Constrained Application
              Protocol (CoAP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-core-coap-pubsub-13, 20 October 2023,

              Amsüss, C., "CoAP Protocol Indication", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-transport-indication-03,
              23 October 2023, <

              Tiloca, M. and E. Dijk, "Proxy Operations for CoAP Group
              Communication", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              tiloca-core-groupcomm-proxy-09, 31 August 2023,

              Tiloca, M., Amsüss, C., and P. Van der Stok, "Discovery of
              OSCORE Groups with the CoRE Resource Directory", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tiloca-core-oscore-
              discovery-14, 8 September 2023,

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,

   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
              P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,

   [RFC7390]  Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,

   [RFC7556]  Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
              Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   [RFC8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,

   [RFC8801]  Pfister, P., Vyncke, É., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W.
              Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data",
              RFC 8801, DOI 10.17487/RFC8801, July 2020,

   [RFC9290]  Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for
              Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022,

Appendix A.  Change log

   Since -08:

   *  Add section on propagating server generated information.

   *  Reference transport-indication appendix as one reason why
      propagation can be relevant.

   Since -07:

   *  Update references.

   Since -06:

   *  Add sketch for DNS updates.

   *  Add sketch for forward proxying.

   *  Fix erroneous section numbers.

   Since -05:

   *  Add section on Limited Lifetimes.

   *  Point out limitations to applications that use reverse proxying.

   *  Minor reference and bugfix updates.

   Since -04:

   *  Minor adjustments:

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

      -  Mention LwM2M and how it is already doing RD proxying.

      -  Tie proxying in with infinite lifetimes.

      -  Remove note on not being able to switch protocols: RDs that
         support some future protocol negotiation can do that.

      -  Point out that there is no Uri-Host from the RD proxy to the
         EP, but there could be.

      -  Infinite lifetimes: Take up CTs more explicitly from RD

      -  Start exploring interactions with groupcomm-proxy.

   Since -03:

   *  Added interaction with PvD (Provisioning Domains)

   Since -02:

   *  Added abstract

   *  Added example of CoRAL FETCH to Lookup across link relations

   Since -01:

   *  Added section on Opportunistic RDs

   Since -00:

   *  Add multicast proxy usage pattern

   *  ondemand proxying: Probing queries must be sent from a different

   *  proxying: Point to RFC7252 to describe how the actual proxying

   *  proxying: Describe this as a last-resort options and suggest
      attempting PCP first

Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   [ Reviews from: Jaime Jimenez ]

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft     CoRE Resource Directory Extensions       October 2023

   Section 4 was inspired by Ben Kaduk's comments from reviewing

Author's Address

   Christian Amsüss

Amsüss                    Expires 25 April 2024                [Page 23]