CoAP in Space
draft-gomez-core-coap-space-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Carles Gomez , Sergio Aguilar | ||
| Last updated | 2024-07-08 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-gomez-core-coap-space-01
CoRE Working Group C. Gomez
Internet-Draft UPC
Intended status: Informational S. Aguilar
Expires: 9 January 2025 Sateliot
July 2024
CoAP in Space
draft-gomez-core-coap-space-01
Abstract
This document provides guidance on using the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) in spatial environments characterized by long delays
and intermittent communication opportunities. Such environments
include some Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite-based scenarios, as well
as deep space scenarios. The document focuses on the approach
whereby an IP protocol stack is used for end-to-end communication.
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 2 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. CoAP transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Overview and underlying transport . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Main CoAP parameters and times relevant to delay-tolerant
space environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Observe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Block-wise transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Main related parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. CoAP group communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Forward Error Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Deep space communication occurs between devices on or orbiting
different celestial bodies (e.g., different planets of the Solar
System). Such environments are characterized by long delays (e.g.,
in the order of minutes or hours), intermittent communication
opportunities, limited energy resources, and relatively low bandwidth
in some cases.
Similar characteristics can be found in Non-Terrestrial Networks
(NTN) based on sparse Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations
that provide direct connectivity to Internet of Things (IoT) devices
on Earth, albeit with discontinuous coverage. In such cases, an IoT
device may need to wait until it is visited by a satellite to be able
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
to transmit its data. In addition, if the satellite does not have an
immediately available link with a ground station or with a second
satellite, the first satellite needs to perform store-and-forward
operation. This paradigm supports delay-tolerant, non-real-time
communication services. Note that extensions to enable store-and-
forward operation are being standardized by 3GPP in Release 19
[_GPP].
The Internet Protocol (IP) stack was considered unsuitable for delay-
tolerant environments more than two decades ago, leading to the
design of the Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) architecture [RFC4838]
and the Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050] [RFC9171]. However, recent
work has revisited such assessment, and it has discussed solutions to
use the IP protocol stack in deep space communication
[I-D.many-deepspace-ip-assessment][I-D.huitema-quic-in-space].
From the application layer point of view, the analysis in
[I-D.many-deepspace-ip-assessment] focuses on the use of HTTP (over
QUIC [RFC9000]) in deep space scenarios. However, it also explicitly
mentions that the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252]
"is worth considering for application transport in deep space".
CoAP is an application-layer protocol based on Representational State
Transfer (REST). In CoAP, endpoints called clients make requests
with the aim to manipulate resources handled by other endpoints
called servers. The latter provide responses back to the clients.
CoAP offers several features suitable for its use in delay-tolerant
space environments, including lightweight operation, asynchronous
message exchanges, and a significant degree of flexibility. This
document provides guidance on the use of CoAP for delay-tolerant
communication in space environments. Use of CoAP over BP [RFC9171]
is outside the scope of this document. Note that there is work in
progress intended to specify how CoAP can be carried over BP
[I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp].
2. Terminology
2.1. Requirements language
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
BCP14 [RFC2119], [RFC8174], when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. CoAP transport
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
3.1. Overview and underlying transport
CoAP was originally designed to use UDP as its underlying transport
protocol [RFC7252]. The message layer of CoAP over UDP supports
optional message reliability, simple congestion control, and flow
control. A CoAP message that requires reliable delivery is marked as
a Confirmable (CON) message. The recipient needs to send an
Acknowledgment (ACK) message to confirm successful reception of a CON
message. A sender uses a retransmission mechanism with a default
timeout and an exponential back-off between retransmissions. A CoAP
message that does not require reliability is marked as a Non-
confirmable (NON) message. NON messages are not acknowledged.
Subsequently, CoAP was adapted to be carried also over other
transports, such as TCP, Transport Layer Security (TLS), and
WebSockets [RFC8323]. However, due to the long delays in delay-
tolerant environments, initial handshake exchanges (e.g., the three-
way handshake of TCP) penalize communication performance
significantly. In addition, when TCP is used as the underlying
transport-layer protocol, the ability of optionally requesting
reliable delivery for a given message (as offered by CoAP over UDP)
is lost. Two further advantages of UDP-based CoAP transport are a
shorter header size and support for multicast. Therefore, this
document will focus on CoAP as used over UDP as the underlying
transport [RFC7252].
3.2. Main CoAP parameters and times relevant to delay-tolerant space
environments
This section discusses the main parameters and times that are
relevant in the context of delay-tolerant space environments. (Note
that the complete set of parameters, assumptions, default values, and
related times in CoAP can be found in Section 4.8 of RFC7252.)
As a congestion control measure, the maximum number of outstanding
interactions between a client and a given server is limited to
NSTART, which is set to a default value of 1. A greater value for
NSTART can be used only when mechanisms that ensure congestion
control safety are used.
The main parameters related with CON messages are indicated next.
ACK_TIMEOUT and ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR. These two parameters determine
the duration of the initial retransmission timeout, which is set to a
randomly chosen value between ACK_TIMEOUT and ACK_TIMEOUT *
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR. The default values for ACK_TIMEOUT and
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR are 2 s and 1.5, respectively. Therefore, the
default initial retransmission timeout in CoAP is between 2 and 3 s.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
ACK_TIMEOUT should be set to a value of at least the expected RTT,
which in delay-tolerant environments such as deep space may be
several orders of magnitude greater than the default one (see
Appendix A of [I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]).
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR needs to be at least equal to or greater than 1.0.
The default value of 1.5 is intended to avoid synchronization effects
among different senders when RTTs are in the order of seconds.
However, the greater latency in delay-tolerant environments may
reduce the risk of synchronization effects therein. In such case, a
lower ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR may help reduce total message delivery
latency when retries are performed.
MAX_RETRANSMIT. This parameter defines the maximum number of retries
for a given CON message. The default value for this parameter is 4.
Since there is an exponential back-off between retransmissions, and
considering the delay values in delay-tolerant environments, it may
be suitable to set this parameter to a value lower than the default
one.
The following assumptions on the characteristics of the network and
the nodes need to be considered:
MAX_LATENCY is the maximum time a datagram is expected to take from
the start of its transmission to the completion of its reception. In
RFC 7252, this value is arbitrarily set to 100 s, which is close to
the historic Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) of 120 s defined in the
TCP specification [RFC9293]. However, such value assumes
communication between devices on Earth. In delay-tolerant
environments, MAX_LATENCY may need to be increased by several orders
of magnitude (e.g., at least 1-2 orders of magnitude in deep space,
See Appendix A of [I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]).
PROCESSING_DELAY is the time since a node receives a CON message
until it transmits an ACK in response. In RFC 7252, this value is
assumed to be of at most the default ACK_TIMEOUT value of 2 s. For
the sake of limiting latency, it is assumed that the same value can
be used also in delay-tolerant environments.
A relevant CON message derived time is EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. This time
indicates the maximum possible time since a CON message is sent for
the first time, until ACK reception (which may potentially occur
after several retries). EXCHANGE_LIFETIME includes the following
components: the total time since the first transmission attempt of a
CON message until the last one (called MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN in RFC
7252), a MAX_LATENCY for the CON, PROCESSING_DELAY, and a MAX_LATENCY
for the ACK. The default value for EXCHANGE_LIFETIME is 247 s.
However, in delay-tolerant environments, and considering the modified
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
values for protocol parameters and the network characteristics
described above, EXCHANGE_LIFETIME may have to be even several orders
of magnitude greater than the default one (e.g., at least 2-3 orders
of magnitude in deep space, See Appendix A of
[I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]).
The main time related with NON messages is NON_LIFETIME. This is the
time since a NON message is transmitted until its Message ID can be
safely reused. This time is actually equal to MAX_LATENCY, therefore
its default value is 100 s. However, as described earlier, in delay-
tolerant environments it may need to be increased by several orders
of magnitude (e.g., at least 1-2 orders of magnitude in deep space,
See Appendix A of [I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]).
Note that implementations may also need to be adapted if they have
been designed to use 8-bit timers to handle CON or NON message
lifetimes (e.g., to retire Message IDs) in seconds.
4. Caching
RFC 7252 states that "CoAP endpoints MAY cache responses in order to
reduce the response time and network bandwidth consumption on future,
equivalent requests". Note that caching may also offer energy
consumption savings.
In delay-tolerant space scenarios, the efficiency provided by the
caching feature is particularly suitable. Nevertheless, it needs to
be adapted to the characteristics of the scenario, especially in
terms of latency.
A cached response can be reused as long as it is considered "fresh".
In order to determine the freshness of a response, the origin server
uses the Max-Age option to indicate that the response is to be
considered not fresh after its age is greater than the specified
number of seconds.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
The default Max-Age value is 60 seconds. When a response does not
carry a Max-Age option, it is considered to have an associated Max-
Age value equal to the default one. Also, the Max-Age value is
intended to be current at the time of transmission. Therefore,
considering the latencies of delay-tolerant environments, if a
response is intended to be cacheable, the origin server needs to
include a Max-Age option of an appropriate value with the response
(the maximum possible option value being 2**32-1 seconds (i.e.,
~136.1 years)). Of course, it will only make sense to consider that
a response is cacheable if it can be fresh for a time greater than
the expected latency between the origin server and the caching CoAP
endpoint. If a CoAP endpoint receives a response known to be not
fresh (e.g., if communication latency is greater than its associated
Max-Age), the CoAP endpoint will not store the response.
5. Observe
The Observe Option allows a server to send notifications carrying a
representation of the current state of a resource to interested
clients called observers [RFC7641]. The latter need to initially
register at a specific server that they are interested in being
notified whenever the resource state changes.
Observe generally provides significant performance benefits, since,
after the registration, the client does not have to send a request to
receive a notification. This feature is particularly beneficial in
delay tolerant environments (e.g., deep space), where end-to-end
latency is high, and energy and bandwidth resources may be
constrained.
As per the Observe specification, when the time between the two last
notifications received by a CoAP client is greater than 128 seconds,
it can be concluded that the last one received is also the latest
sent by the server. The duration of 128 seconds was chosen as a
number greater than the default MAX_LATENCY value of the base CoAP
specification. When CoAP is used in delay-tolerant environments
(e.g., deep space), the duration of 128 seconds may be insufficient.
In such case, the duration needs to be chosen as a value greater than
the MAX_LATENCY of the scenario (See Appendix A of
[I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]).
6. Block-wise transfers
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
6.1. Overview
There exist two CoAP specifications that define functionality that
allows to carry large CoAP payloads (i.e., payloads that do not fit a
single packet) by means of block-wise transfers: [RFC7959] and
[RFC9177].
RFC 7959 defines the Block1 and Block2 options, whereby, in a block-
wise transfer, a CoAP endpoint can only ask for (or send) the next
block after the previous block has been transferred. Furthermore,
RFC 7959 recommends the use of CON messages. Therefore,
communication follows a stop-and-wait pattern.
RFC 9177, which defines the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options, is
particularly suitable for delay-tolerant environments, as it enables
block-wise transfers using NON messages. Thus, blocks can be
transmitted serially without having to wait for a response or next
request from the remote CoAP peer. Recovery of multiple missing
blocks (which can be reported at once in a single CoAP message) is
also supported.
The Q-Block1 option is defined for payload-bearing (e.g., POST, PUT,
FETCH, PATCH, and iPATCH) requests and their responses. The Q-Block2
option is useful for requests (e.g., GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH,
and iPATCH) and their payload-bearing responses.
6.2. Main related parameters
The following new parameters are defined by RFC 9177, for use with
NON messages and the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options: MAX_PAYLOADS,
NON_TIMEOUT, NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM, NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT,
NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, NON_PROBING_WAIT, and NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT.
MAX_PAYLOADS indicates the number of consecutive blocks an endpoint
can transmit without eliciting a message from the other endpoint.
The default value defined for this parameter is 10, which is in line
with the initial window size currently defined for TCP [RFC6928].
TO-DO: MAX_PAYLOADS recommended setting?
NON_TIMEOUT is the minimum time between sending two consecutive sets
of MAX_PAYLOADS blocks that correspond to the same body. The actual
time between sending two consecutive sets of MAX_PAYLOADS blocks is
called NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM, which is calculated as NON_TIMEOUT *
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR. In RFC 9177, NON_TIMEOUT is defined as having the
same value as ACK_TIMEOUT. ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR is set to 1.5,
following RFC 7252. As a result, by default, NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM is
equal to a randomly chosen value between 2 and 3 s.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
The NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM inactivity interval described above is
introduced to avoid causing congestion due to the transmission of
MAX_PAYLOADS itself. As discussed in Section 3.2, in delay-tolerant
environments, ACK_TIMEOUT should be set to a value greater than
default. However, when CoAP is used in such environments,
NON_TIMEOUT, and thus NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM, need to be adjusted
considering the characteristics of the end-to-end path, independent
of ACK_TIMEOUT.
NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT is the initial time that a receiver will wait for
a missing block within MAX_PAYLOADS before requesting retransmission
for the first time. Every time the missing payload is re-requested,
the time to wait value doubles. NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT has a default
value of 2*NON_TIMEOUT. As described earlier, when CoAP is used in
delay-tolerant environments, NON_TIMEOUT needs to be adjusted
considering the characteristics of the end-to-end path.
NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT is the maximum number of times a request for the
retransmission of missing payloads can occur without a response from
the remote peer. By default, NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT has the same value
as MAX_RETRANSMIT (Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]). Accordingly, when CoAP
is used in delay-tolerant environments (e.g., deep space), the same
considerations regarding MAX_RETRANSMIT in Section 3.2 apply to
NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT as well. That is, when CoAP is used in space,
while the default value for this parameter is 4, it may be suitable
to set this parameter to a value lower than the default one.
7. CoAP group communication
In CoAP group communication, a client sends multicast CoAP request
messages over UDP/IP multicast as default transport. Each server in
the target destination group sends a response message back to the
client over UDP/IP unicast, although a server can suppress its
response for several reasons (see Section 3.1.2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]).
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis] defines the minimum time between reuse
of Token values for different group requests, MIN_TOKEN_REUSE_TIME,
to be greater than:
MIN_TOKEN_REUSE_TIME = (NON_LIFETIME + MAX_LATENCY +
MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY)
where MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY is the expected maximum response
delay over all servers that the client can send a CoAP group request
to. [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis] states that, "using the default
CoAP parameters, the Token reuse time MUST be greater than 250
seconds plus MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY".
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis] also adds that, while a possible
approach is to generate a new unique Token for every new group
request, if a client has to reuse Token values for some reason,
MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY = 250 seconds is a suitable value,
therefore leading to a time between Token reuses greater than
MIN_TOKEN_REUSE_TIME = 500 seconds. However, in a delay-tolerant
scenario, MIN_TOKEN_REUSE_TIME needs to be determined considering the
latency of that scenario.
8. Security
The base CoAP specification defines a binding to Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC7252][RFC9147]. There are four possible
DTLS security modes: NoSec, PreSharedKey, RawPublicKey, and
Certificate. The NoSec and RawPublicKey modes are mandatory to
implement.
Subsequently, Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE) was specified [RFC8613]. OSCORE is a security protocol that
allows to protect an application-layer data payload end-to-end, even
in the presence of untrusted proxies in the path between two
endpoints. The Group OSCORE protocol is also being used to secure
CoAP group communication [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm], in
contrast with the initial CoAP group communication specification [RFC
7390], which assumed that CoAP over IP multicast was not encrypted,
nor authenticated, nor access controlled.
In OSCORE, the communicating endpoints require a shared security
context. An interesting aspect of OSCORE for delay-tolerant
environments (e.g., deep space) is that, if the materials used to
establish such context are pre-shared, there is no initial handshake
prior to actual communication, thus avoiding a significant latency
penalty.
In order to offer protection against replay attacks, OSCORE uses by
default an anti-replay sliding window, with a window size of 32 [RFC
8613]. If a greater window size is deemed necessary (e.g., due to
high latency in an intended scenario), that window size needs to be
known by both sender and receiver at the moment of security context
establishment.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
9. Forward Error Correction
As of the writing, no proposal has been made to add support of
Forward Error Correction (FEC) to CoAP. However, considering the
significant latency penalty of delay-tolerant space environments
(e.g., deep space), FEC might allow to reduce the probability of
incurring additional latency (due to retries) in order to sucessfully
deliver a message to its intended destination.
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations
11. Security Considerations
TO-DO
12. Acknowledgments
Marisa Catalan and Julia Igual from i2cat contributed to this
document.
Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government
through project PID2019-106808RA-I00, and by Secretaria
d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de
la Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 through grant SGR 376 and 2021
throught grant SGR 00330.
The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Christian
Amsuess, Marc Blanchet, Carsten Bormann, Jaime Jimenez, Achim Kraus,
and Marco Tiloca for useful considerations, reviews and comments.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]
Dijk, E., Wang, C., and M. Tiloca, "Group Communication
for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-
11, 24 April 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-bis-11>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
[RFC6928] Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7641] Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.
[RFC9177] Boucadair, M. and J. Shallow, "Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission", RFC 9177, DOI 10.17487/RFC9177,
March 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9177>.
13.2. Informative References
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
[I-D.gomez-core-coap-bp]
Gomez, C. and A. Calveras, "Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) over Bundle Protocol (BP)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gomez-core-coap-bp-01, 24
June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
gomez-core-coap-bp-01>.
[I-D.huitema-quic-in-space]
Huitema, C. and M. Blanchet, "QUIC in Space", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-huitema-quic-in-space-00,
24 September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-huitema-quic-in-space-00>.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Mattsson, J. P.,
and R. Höglund, "Group Object Security for Constrained
RESTful Environments (Group OSCORE)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-21, 4
March 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-21>.
[I-D.many-deepspace-ip-assessment]
Blanchet, M., Huitema, C., and D. Bogdanović, "Revisiting
the Use of the IP Protocol Stack in Deep Space: Assessment
and Possible Solutions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-many-deepspace-ip-assessment-01, 4 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-many-
deepspace-ip-assessment-01>.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.
[RFC7390] Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoAP in Space July 2024
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle
Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9171>.
[RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.
[_GPP] 3GPP TR23.700-29, "Technical Specification Group Services
and System Aspects; Study on integration of satellite
components in the 5G architecture; Phase 3 (Rel-19)",
2024.
Authors' Addresses
Carles Gomez
UPC
C/Esteve Terradas, 7
08860 Castelldefels
Spain
Email: carles.gomez@upc.edu
Sergio Aguilar
Sateliot
C/Berlin 61, Esc A Entresuelo
08029 Barcelona
Spain
Email: sergio.aguilar@sateliot.com
Gomez & Aguilar Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 14]