%% You should probably cite rfc9177 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-core-new-block-14, number = {draft-ietf-core-new-block-14}, 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/14/}, author = {Mohamed Boucadair and Jon Shallow}, title = {{Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting Robust Transmission}}, pagetotal = 41, year = 2021, month = may, day = 26, abstract = {This document specifies alternative Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) block-wise transfer options: Q-Block1 and Q-Block2. These options are similar to, but distinct from, the CoAP Block1 and Block2 options defined in RFC 7959. The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are not intended to replace the Block1 and Block2 options but rather have the goal of supporting Non-confirmable (NON) messages for large amounts of data with fewer packet interchanges. Also, the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options support faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in transmission.}, }