CoAP: Non-traditional response forms
draft-bormann-core-responses-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-11-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                         November 13, 2017
Expires: May 17, 2018

                  CoAP: Non-traditional response forms
                    draft-bormann-core-responses-00

Abstract

   In CoAP as defined by RFC 7252, responses are always unicast back to
   a client that posed a request.  The present memo describes two forms
   of responses that go beyond that model.  These descriptions are not
   intended as advocacy for adopting these approaches immediately, they
   are provided to point out potential avenues for development that
   would have to be carefully evaluated.

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 https://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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (https://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

Bormann                   Expires May 17, 2018                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    CoAP: Non-traditional response forms     November 2017

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Response with embedded request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Response for configured request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Examples for configured requests  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Example: Periodic request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Example: Event driven request . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Example: Configured observe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.  Multicast responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.6.  Respond-To option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   In CoAP as defined by RFC 7252, responses are always unicast back to
   a client that posed a request.  A server may want to send a response
   to a request that it did not receive, may want to multicast a
   response, or both.

   The descriptions in this specification are not intended as advocacy
   for adopting these approaches immediately, they are provided to point
   out potential avenues for development that would have to be carefully
   evaluated.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
   "octet".

   Terms used in this draft:

Bormann                   Expires May 17, 2018                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    CoAP: Non-traditional response forms     November 2017
Show full document text