%% You should probably cite rfc9177 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-core-new-block-09, number = {draft-ietf-core-new-block-09}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-new-block/09/}, author = {Mohamed Boucadair and Jon Shallow}, title = {{Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options for Faster Transmission}}, pagetotal = 44, year = 2021, month = mar, day = 17, abstract = {This document specifies alternative Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise transfer options: Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options. These options are similar to the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options defined in RFC 7959, not a replacement for them, but do enable faster transmission rates for large amounts of data with less packet interchanges. Also, Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options support faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in transmission.}, }