Observing Resources in CoAP
draft-ietf-core-observe-11
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7641.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Klaus Hartke | ||
| Last updated | 2013-10-15 | ||
| Replaces | draft-hartke-coap-observe | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-14)
Has Issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | AD is watching | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
| Send notices to | core-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-observe@tools.ietf.org |
draft-ietf-core-observe-11
CoRE Working Group K. Hartke
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2013
Expires: April 18, 2014
Observing Resources in CoAP
draft-ietf-core-observe-11
Abstract
CoAP is a RESTful application protocol for constrained nodes and
networks. The state of a resource on a CoAP server can change over
time. This document specifies a simple protocol extension for CoAP
that enables CoAP clients to "observe" resources, i.e., to retrieve
a representation of a resource and keep this representation updated
by the server over a period of time. The protocol follows a best-
effort approach for sending new representations to clients and
provides eventual consistency between the state observed by each
client and the actual resource state at the server.
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 http://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 April 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
(http://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
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Observable Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. The Observe Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Client-side Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Server-side Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Web Linking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.1. Client/Server Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Proxy Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] is an application protocol for constrained
nodes and networks. It is intended to provide RESTful services
[REST] not unlike HTTP [RFC2616] while reducing the complexity of
implementation as well as the size of packets exchanged in order to
make these services useful in a highly constrained network of
themselves highly constrained nodes.
The model of REST is that of a client exchanging representations of
resources with a server, where a representation captures the current
or intended state of a resource and the server is the definitive
source for representations of the resources in its namespace. A
client interested in the state of a resource initiates a request to
the server; the server then returns a response with a representation
of the resource that is current at the time of the request.
This model does not work well when a client is interested in having a
current representation of a resource over a period of time. Existing
approaches from HTTP, such as repeated polling or HTTP long polling
[RFC6202], generate significant complexity and/or overhead and thus
are less applicable in a constrained environment.
The protocol specified in this document extends the CoAP core
protocol with a mechanism for a CoAP client to "observe" a resource
on a CoAP server: the client can retrieve a representation of the
resource and request this representation be updated by the server
over a period of time.
The protocol keeps the architectural properties of REST. It enables
high scalability and efficiency through the support of caches and
proxies. There is no intention for it, though, to solve the full set
of problems that the existing HTTP solutions solve, or to replace
publish/subscribe networks that solve a much more general problem
[RFC5989].
1.2. Protocol Overview
The protocol is based on the well-known observer design pattern
[GOF]. In this design pattern, components called "observers"
register at a specific, known provider called the "subject" that they
are interested in being notified whenever the subject undergoes a
change in state. The subject is responsible for administering its
list of registered observers. If multiple subjects are of interest
to an observer, the observer must register separately for all of
them.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Observer Subject
| |
| Registration |
+------------------->|
| |
| Notification |
|<-------------------+
| |
| Notification |
|<-------------------+
| |
| Notification |
|<-------------------+
| |
Figure 1: The Observer Design Pattern
The observer design pattern is realized in CoAP as follows:
Subject: In the context of CoAP, the subject is a resource in the
namespace of a CoAP server. The state of the resource can change
over time, ranging from infrequent updates to continuous state
transformations.
Observer: An observer is a CoAP client that is interested in having
a current representation of the resource at any given time.
Registration: A client registers its interest in a resource by
initiating an extended GET request to the server. In addition to
returning a representation of the target resource, this request
causes the server to add the client to the list of observers of
the resource.
Notification: Whenever the state of a resource changes, the server
notifies each client in the list of observers of the resource.
Each notification is an additional CoAP response sent by the
server in reply to the GET request and includes a complete,
updated representation of the new resource state.
Figure 2 below shows an example of a CoAP client registering its
interest in a resource and receiving three notifications: the first
upon registration with the current state, and then two upon changes
to the resource state. Both the registration request and the
notifications are identified as such by the presence of the Observe
Option defined in this document. In notifications, the Observe
Option additionally provides a sequence number for reordering
detection. All notifications carry the token specified by the
client, so the client can easily correlate them to the request.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Client Server
| |
| GET /temperature |
| Token: 0x4a | Registration
| Observe: (empty) |
+------------------->|
| |
| 2.05 Content |
| Token: 0x4a | Notification of
| Observe: 12 | the current state
| Payload: 22.9 Cel |
|<-------------------+
| |
| 2.05 Content |
| Token: 0x4a | Notification upon
| Observe: 44 | a state change
| Payload: 22.8 Cel |
|<-------------------+
| |
| 2.05 Content |
| Token: 0x4a | Notification upon
| Observe: 60 | a state change
| Payload: 23.1 Cel |
|<-------------------+
| |
Figure 2: Observing a Resource in CoAP
A client remains on the list of observers as long as the server can
determine the client's continued interest in the resource. The
interest is determined from the client's acknowledgement of
notifications sent in confirmable CoAP messages by the server: If the
client actively rejects a notification or if the transmission of a
notification times out after several transmission attempts, then the
client is assumed to be no longer interested and it is removed from
the list of observers.
1.3. Observable Resources
A CoAP server is the authority for determining under what conditions
resources change their state and thus when observers are notified of
new resource states. The protocol does not offer explicit means for
setting up triggers or thresholds; it is up to the server to expose
observable resources that change their state in a way that is useful
in the application context.
For example, a CoAP server with an attached temperature sensor could
expose one or more of the following resources:
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
o <coap://server/temperature>, which changes its state every second
to the current reading of the temperature sensor;
o <coap://server/temperature/felt>, which changes its state to
"cold" when the temperature reading drops below a certain pre-
configured threshold, and to "warm" when the reading exceeds a
second, slightly higher threshold;
o <coap://server/temperature/critical?above=45>, which changes its
state based on the client-specified parameter value: every second
to the current temperature reading if the temperature exceeds the
threshold, or to "OK" when the reading drops below; and/or
o <coap://server/?query=select+avg(temperature)+from+Sensor.window:
time(30sec)>, which accepts expressions of arbitrary complexity
and changes its state accordingly.
So, by designing CoAP resources that change their state on certain
conditions, it is possible to update the client only when these
conditions occur instead of continuously supplying it with raw sensor
readings. By parameterizing resources, this is not limited to
conditions defined by the server, but can be extended to arbitrarily
complex queries specified by the client. Thus, the application
designer can choose exactly the right level of complexity for the
application envisioned and devices used, and is not constrained to a
"one size fits all" mechanism built into the protocol.
1.4. Consistency
While a client is in the list of observers of a resource, the goal of
the protocol is to keep the resource state observed by the client as
closely in sync with the actual state at the server as possible.
It cannot be avoided that the client and the server become
inconsistent at times: First, there is always some latency between
the change of the resource state and the receipt of the notification.
Second, messages with notifications can get lost, which will cause
the client to assume an old state until it receives a new
notification. And third, the server may erroneously come to the
conclusion that the client is no longer interested in the resource,
which will cause the server to stop sending notifications and the
client to assume an old state until it registers its interest
eventually again.
The protocol addresses this as follows:
o It follows a best-effort approach for sending the current
representation to the client after a state change: Clients should
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
see the new state after a state change as soon as possible, and
they should see as many states as possible. However, a client
cannot rely on observing every single state that a resource might
go through.
o It labels notifications with a maximum duration up to which it is
acceptable for the observed state and the actual state to be out
of sync. When the age of the notification received reaches this
limit, the client cannot use the enclosed representation until it
receives a new notification.
o It is designed on the principle of eventual consistency: The
protocol guarantees that, if the resource does not undergo a new
change in state, eventually all registered observers will have a
current representation of the latest resource state.
1.5. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. The Observe Option
+-----+---+---+---+---+---------+------------+-----------+---------+
| No. | C | U | N | R | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+---+---+---+---+---------+------------+-----------+---------+
| 6 | | x | - | | Observe | empty/uint | 0 B/0-3 B | (none) |
+-----+---+---+---+---+---------+------------+-----------+---------+
C=Critical, U=Unsafe, N=No-Cache-Key, R=Repeatable
Table 1: The Observe Option
The Observe Option, when present in a request, extends the GET method
so it does not only retrieve a current representation of the target
resource, but also requests the server to add a new entry to the list
of observers of the resource. The list entry consists of the client
endpoint and the token specified by the client in the request.
The value of the Observe Option in a request MUST be empty on
transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.
The Observe Option is not critical for processing the request. If
the server is unwilling or unable to add the client to the list of
observers of the target resource, then the request falls back to a
normal GET request.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
In a response, the Observe Option identifies the message as a
notification. This implies that the server has added the client to
the list of observers and that it will notify the client of changes
to the resource state.
The value of the Observe Option in a response is a 24-bit sequence
number for reordering detection (see Section 3.4 and Section 4.4).
The sequence number is encoded in network byte order using a variable
number of bytes ('uint' format; see Section 3.2 of RFC XXXX
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]).
The Observe Option is not part of the cache-key: a cacheable response
obtained with an Observe Option in the request can be used to satisfy
a request without an Observe Option, and vice versa. When a stored
response that includes an Observe Option is used to satisfy a normal
GET request, the option MUST be removed before the response is
returned to the client.
3. Client-side Requirements
3.1. Request
A client can register its interest in a resource by issuing a GET
request that includes an empty Observe Option. If the server returns
a 2.xx response that includes an Observe Option as well, the server
has added the client successfully to the list of observers of the
target resource and the client will be notified of changes to the
resource state.
Like a fresh response can be used to satisfy a request without
contacting the server, the updates resulting from one request can be
used to satisfy another request if the target resource is the same.
A client therefore MUST aggregate requests where possible, and MUST
NOT register more than once for the same target resource. The target
resource SHALL be identified for this purpose by all options in the
request that are part of the cache-key, such as the full request URI
and the Accept Option.
3.2. Notifications
Notifications are additional responses sent by the server in reply to
the GET request. Each notification includes the token specified by
the client in the GET request, an Observe Option with a sequence
number for reordering detection (see Section 3.4), and a payload in
the same Content-Format as the initial response.
Notifications have a 2.05 (Content) response code, or potentially a
2.03 (Valid) response code if the client included one or more ETag
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Options in the request (see Section 3.3). In the event that the
resource changes in a way that would cause a normal GET request at
that time to return a non-2.xx response (for example, when the
resource is deleted), the server sends a notification with an
appropriate response code (such as 4.04 Not Found) and removes all
clients from the list of observers of the resource.
3.3. Caching
As notifications are just additional responses to a GET request,
notifications partake in caching as defined in Section 5.6 of RFC
XXXX [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. Both the freshness model and the
validation model are supported.
3.3.1. Freshness
A client MAY store a notification like a response in its cache and
use a stored notification that is fresh without contacting the
server. Like a response, a notification is considered fresh while
its age is not greater than the value indicated by the Max-Age Option
and no newer notification/response has been received.
The server will do its best to keep the resource state observed by
the client as closely in sync with the actual state as possible.
However, a client cannot rely on observing every single state that a
resource might go through. For example, if the network is congested
or the state changes more frequently than the network can handle, the
server can skip notifications for any number of intermediate states.
The server uses the Max-Age Option to indicate an age up to which it
is acceptable that the observed state and the actual state are
inconsistent. If the age of the latest notification becomes greater
than its indicated Max-Age, then the client MUST NOT assume that the
enclosed representation reflects the actual resource state.
To make sure it has a current representation and/or to re-register
its interest in a resource, a client MAY issue a new GET request with
an Observe Option and the same token at any time. It is RECOMMENDED
that the client does not issue the request while it still has a fresh
notification/response for the resource in its cache. Additionally,
the client SHOULD wait for a random amount of time between 5 and 15
seconds to avoid synchronicity with other clients.
3.3.2. Validation
When a client has one or more notifications stored in its cache for a
resource, it can use the ETag Option in the GET request to give the
server an opportunity to select a stored notification to be used.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
The client MAY include an ETag Option for each stored response that
is applicable in the GET request. Whenever the observed resource
changes to a representation identified by one of the ETag Options,
the server can select a stored response by sending a 2.03 (Valid)
notification with an appropriate ETag Option instead of a 2.05
(Content) notification.
A client implementation needs to keep all candidate responses in its
cache until it is no longer interested in the target resource or it
issues a GET request with a new set of entity-tags.
3.4. Reordering
Messages with notifications can arrive in a different order than they
were sent. Since the goal is to keep the observed state as closely
in sync with the actual state as possible, a client MUST NOT update
the observed state with a notification that arrives later than a
newer notification.
For reordering detection, the server sets the value of the Observe
Option in each notification to the 24 least-significant bits of a
strictly increasing sequence number. An incoming notification is
newer than the newest notification received so far when one of the
following conditions is met:
(V1 < V2 and V2 - V1 < 2^23) or
(V1 > V2 and V1 - V2 > 2^23) or
(T2 > T1 + 128 seconds)
where V1 is the value of the Observe Option of the newest
notification received so far, V2 the value of the Observe Option of
the incoming notification, T1 a client-local timestamp of the newest
notification received so far, and T2 a client-local timestamp of the
incoming notification.
Design Note: The first two conditions verify that V1 is less than V2
in 24-bit serial number arithmetic [RFC1982]. The third condition
ensures that the time elapsed between the two incoming messages is
not so large that the difference between V1 and V2 has become
larger than the largest integer that it is meaningful to add to a
24-bit serial number; in other words, after 128 seconds have
elapsed without any notification, a client does not need to check
the sequence numbers to assume an incoming notification is new.
The duration of 128 seconds was chosen as a nice round number
greater than MAX_LATENCY (see Section 4.8.2 of RFC XXXX
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]).
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
3.5. Transmission
A notification can be confirmable or non-confirmable, i.e., be sent
in a confirmable or a non-confirmable message. The message type used
for a notification is independent from the type used for the request
or for any previous notification.
If a client does not recognize the token in a confirmable
notification, it MUST NOT acknowledge the message and SHOULD reject
it with a Reset message; otherwise, the client MUST acknowledge the
message as usual. In the case of a non-confirmable notification,
rejecting the message with a Reset message is OPTIONAL.
An acknowledgement message signals to the server that the client is
alive and interested in receiving further notifications; if the
server does not receive an acknowledgement in reply to a confirmable
notification, it will assume that the client is no longer interested
and will eventually remove the associated entry from the list of
observers.
3.6. Cancellation
A client that is no longer interested in receiving further
notifications for a resource can simply "forget" the pending request.
When the server then sends a notification, the client will not
recognize the token in the message. If the notification was
confirmable, this will cause the client to return a Reset message and
thus the server to remove the associated entry from the list of
observers. Entries in lists of observers are effectively "garbage
collected" by the server.
When a client rejects a non-confirmable notification, the server may
also (but is not required to) remove the associated entry from the
list of observers. So, if the servers seems to ignore the Reset
messages that the client sends to reject non-confirmable
notifications, the client may have to wait for a confirmable
notification until the list entry is removed.
4. Server-side Requirements
4.1. Request
A GET request with an Observe Option requests the server not only to
return a current representation of the target resource, but also to
add the client to the list of observers of that resource. Upon
success, the server MUST return a current representation of the
resource and MUST notify the client of subsequent changes to the
state as long as the client is on the list of observers.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
The entry in the list of observers is keyed by the client endpoint
and the token specified by the client in the request. If an entry
with a matching endpoint/token pair is already present in the list
(which, for example, happens when the client wishes to reinforce its
interest in a resource), the server MUST NOT add a new entry but MUST
replace or update the existing one.
A server that is unable or unwilling to add a new entry to the list
of observers of a resource MAY silently ignore the Observe Option and
process the GET request as usual. The resulting response MUST NOT
include an Observe Option, the absence of which signals to the client
that it will not be notified of changes to the resource and, e.g.,
needs to poll the resource for its state instead.
4.2. Notifications
A client is notified of changes to the resource state by additional
responses sent by the server in reply to the GET request. Each such
notification response (including the initial response) MUST include
an Observe Option and MUST echo the token specified by the client in
the GET request. If there are multiple entries in the list of
observers, the order in which the clients are notified is not
defined; the server is free to use any method to determine the order.
A notification SHOULD have a 2.05 (Content) or 2.03 (Valid) response
code. However, in the event that the state of a resource changes in
a way that would cause a normal GET request at that time to return a
non-2.xx response (for example, when the resource is deleted), the
server SHOULD notify the client by sending a notification with an
appropriate response code (such as 4.04 Not Found) and MUST remove
the client from the list of observers of the resource.
The Content-Format used in a notification MUST be the same as the one
used in the initial response to the GET request. If the server is
unable to continue sending notifications in this Content-Format, it
SHOULD send a notification with a 4.06 (Not Acceptable) response code
and MUST remove the client from the list of observers of the
resource.
A non-2.xx notification MUST NOT include an Observe Option.
4.3. Caching
As notifications are just additional responses sent by the server,
they are subject to caching as defined in Section 5.6 of RFC XXXX
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
4.3.1. Freshness
After returning the initial response, the server MUST try to keep the
returned representation current, i.e., keep the resource state
observed by the client as closely in sync with the actual resource
state as possible.
Since becoming out of sync at times cannot be avoided, the server
MUST indicate for each representation an age up to which it is
acceptable that the observed state and the actual state are
inconsistent. This age is application-dependent and MUST be
specified in notifications using the Max-Age Option.
When the resource does not change and the client has a current
representation, the server does not need to send a notification.
However, if the client does not receive a notification, the client
cannot tell if the observed state and the actual state are still in
sync. Thus, when the the age of the latest notification becomes
greater than its indicated Max-Age, the client no longer has a usable
representation of the resource state. The server MAY wish to prevent
that by sending a notification with the unchanged representation and
a new Max-Age just before the old Max-Age expires.
4.3.2. Validation
A client can include a set of entity-tags in its request using the
ETag Option. When a observed resource changes its state and the
origin server is about to send a 2.05 (Content) notification, then,
whenever that notification has an entity-tag in the set of entity-
tags specified by the client, the server MAY send a 2.03 (Valid)
response with an appropriate ETag Option instead.
4.4. Reordering
Because messages can get reordered, the client needs a way to
determine if a notification arrived later than a newer notification.
For this purpose, the server MUST set the value of the Observe Option
of each notification it sends to the 24 least-significant bits of a
strictly increasing sequence number. The sequence number MAY start
at any value and MUST NOT increase so fast that it increases by more
than 2^23 within less than 256 seconds.
The sequence number selected for a notification MUST be greater than
that of any preceding notification sent to the same client with the
same token for the same resource. The value of the Observe Option
MUST be current at the time of transmission; if a notification is
retransmitted, the server MUST update the value of the option to the
sequence number that is current at that time before sending the
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
message.
The sequence numbers generated for a resource MUST provide an order
among all notifications resulting from all requests from the same
client endpoint.
Implementation Note: A simple implementation that satisfies the
requirements is to obtain a timestamp from a local clock. The
sequence number then is the timestamp in ticks, where 1 tick =
(256 seconds)/(2^23) = 30.52 microseconds. It is not necessary
that the clock reflects the current time/date.
Another valid implementation is to store a 24-bit unsigned integer
variable per resource and increment this variable each time the
resource undergoes a change of state (provided that the resource
changes its state less than 2^23 times in the next 256 seconds
after every state change). This removes the need to update the
value of the Observe Option on retransmission when the resource
state did not change.
Design Note: The choice of a 24-bit option value and a time span of
256 seconds allows for a notification rate of up to 65536
notifications per second. Constrained nodes often have rather
imprecise clocks, though, and inaccuracies of the client and
server side may cancel out or add in effect. Reducing the maximum
notification rate to 32768 notifications per second is still well
beyond the highest known design objective of around 1 kHz (most
CoAP applications will be several orders of magnitude below that),
but allows total clock inaccuracies of up to -50/+100 %.
4.5. Transmission
A notification can be sent in a confirmable or a non-confirmable
message. The message type used is typically application-dependent
and MAY be determined by the server for each notification
individually. For example, for resources that change in a somewhat
predictable or regular fashion, notifications can be sent in non-
confirmable messages; for resources that change infrequently,
notifications can be sent in confirmable messages. The server can
combine these two approaches depending on the frequency of state
changes and the importance of individual notifications.
A server MAY choose to skip sending a notification if it knows that
it will send another notification soon, for example, when the state
is changing frequently. Similarly, it MAY choose to send a
notification more than once. However, above all, the server MUST
ensure that a client in the list of observers of a resource
eventually observes the latest state if the resource does not undergo
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
a new change in state. For example, when state changes occur in
bursts, the server can skip some notifications, send the
notifications in non-confirmable messages, and make sure that the
client observes the latest state change by repeating the last
notification in a confirmable message when the burst is over.
The client's acknowledgement of a confirmable notification signals to
the server that the client is interested in receiving further
notifications. If a client rejects a confirmable notification with a
Reset message, the client is no longer interested and the server MUST
remove the associated entry from the list of observers. If the
client rejects a non-confirmable notification, the server MAY remove
the entry from the list of observers as well. (It is expected that
the server does remove the entry if it has the information available
that is needed to match the Reset message to the non-confirmable
notification, but the server is not required to keep this
information.)
At a minimum, the server MUST send a notification in a confirmable
message instead of a non-confirmable message at least every 24 hours,
so a client that went away or is no longer interested does not remain
forever in the list of observers.
The server MUST limit the number of confirmable notifications for
which an acknowledgement has not been received from a client yet to
NSTART (1 by default; see Section 4.7 of RFC XXXX
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]).
The server SHOULD NOT send more than one non-confirmable notification
per round-trip time (RTT) to a client on average. If the server
cannot maintain an RTT estimate for a client, it SHOULD NOT send more
than one non-confirmable notification every 3 seconds, and SHOULD use
an even less aggressive rate when possible (see also Section 3.1.2 of
RFC 5405 [RFC5405]).
When the state of an observed resource changes while the number of
outstanding acknowledgements is greater than or equal to NSTART, or
while the waiting time for a non-confirmable notification has not
elapsed yet, the server MUST proceed as follows:
1. Wait for the current transmission attempt to be acknowledged,
rejected or to time out (confirmable transmission), or the
waiting time to elapse (non-confirmable transmission).
2. If the transmission is rejected or the transmission was the last
attempt to deliver a notification, remove the associated entry
from the list of observers of the observed resource.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
3. If the entry is still in the list of observers, start to transmit
a new notification with a representation of the current resource
state. Should the resource have changed its state more than once
in the meantime, the notifications for the intermediate states
are silently skipped.
4. If the completed transmission attempt timed out, increment the
retransmission counter and double the timeout for the new
transmission; otherwise, reinitialize both the retransmission
counter and timeout as described in Section 4.2 of RFC XXXX
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
5. Intermediaries
A client may be interested in a resource in the namespace of an
origin server that is reached through a chain of one or more CoAP
intermediaries. In this case, the client registers its interest with
the first intermediary towards the origin server, acting as if it was
communicating with the origin server itself as specified in
Section 3. It is the task of this intermediary to provide the client
with a current representation of the target resource and send
notifications upon changes to the target resource state, much like an
origin server as specified in Section 4.
To perform this task, the intermediary SHOULD make use of the
protocol specified in this document, taking the role of the client
and registering its own interest in the target resource with the next
hop towards the origin server. If the next hop does not return a
response with an Observe Option, the intermediary MAY resort to
polling the next hop or MAY itself return a response without an
Observe Option.
The communication between each pair of hops is independent; each hop
in the server role MUST determine individually how many notifications
to send, of which message type, and so on. Each hop MUST generate
its own values for the Observe Option, and MUST set the value of the
Max-Age Option according to the age of the local current
representation.
If two or more clients have registered their interest in a resource
with an intermediary, the intermediary MUST register itself only once
with the next hop and fan out the notifications it receives to all
registered clients. This relieves the next hop from sending the same
notifications multiple times and thus enables scalability.
An intermediary is not required to act on behalf of a client to
observe a resource; an intermediary MAY observe a resource, for
example, just to keep its own cache up to date.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
See Appendix A.2 for examples.
6. Web Linking
A web link [RFC5988] to a resource accessible over CoAP (for example,
in a link-format document [RFC6690]) MAY include the target attribute
"obs".
The "obs" attribute, when present, is a hint indicating that the
destination of a link is useful for observation and thus, for
example, should have a suitable graphical representation in a user
interface. Note that this is only a hint; it is not a promise that
the Observe Option can actually be used to perform the observation.
A client may need to resort to polling the resource if the Observe
Option is not returned in the response to the GET request.
A value MUST NOT be given for the "obs" attribute; any present value
MUST be ignored by parsers. The "obs" attribute MUST NOT appear more
than once in a given link-value; occurrences after the first MUST be
ignored by parsers.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RFC XXXX [I-D.ietf-core-coap] apply.
The considerations about amplification attacks are somewhat amplified
when observing resources. Without client authentication, a server
MUST therefore strictly limit the number of notifications that it
sends between receiving acknowledgements that confirm the actual
interest of the client in the data; i.e., any notifications sent in
non-confirmable messages MUST be interspersed with confirmable
messages. (An attacker may still spoof the acknowledgements if the
confirmable messages are sufficiently predictable.)
As with any protocol that creates state, attackers may attempt to
exhaust the resources that the server has available for maintaining
the list of observers for each resource. Servers may want to access-
control this creation of state. As degraded behavior, the server can
always fall back to processing the request as a normal GET request
(without an Observe Option) if it is unwilling or unable to add a
client to the list of observers of a resource, including if system
resources are exhausted or nearing exhaustion.
Intermediaries must be careful to ensure that notifications cannot be
employed to create a loop. A simple way to break any loops is to
employ caches for forwarding notifications in intermediaries.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
8. IANA Considerations
The following entry is added to the CoAP Option Numbers registry:
+--------+---------+-----------+
| Number | Name | Reference |
+--------+---------+-----------+
| 6 | Observe | [RFCXXXX] |
+--------+---------+-----------+
[Note to RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]
9. Acknowledgements
Carsten Bormann was an original author of this draft and is
acknowledged for significant contribution to this document.
Thanks to Daniele Alessandrelli, Jari Arkko, Peter Bigot, Angelo P.
Castellani, Gilbert Clark, Esko Dijk, Thomas Fossati, Brian Frank,
Bert Greevenbosch, Jeroen Hoebeke, Cullen Jennings, Matthias
Kovatsch, Salvatore Loreto, Charles Palmer, Zach Shelby, and Floris
Van den Abeele for helpful comments and discussions that have shaped
the document.
This work was supported in part by Klaus Tschira Foundation, Intel,
Cisco, and Nokia.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-ietf-core-coap-18 (work in progress),
June 2013.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number
Arithmetic", RFC 1982, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage
Guidelines for Application Designers", BCP 145,
RFC 5405, November 2008.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
October 2010.
10.2. Informative References
[GOF] Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and J.
Vlissides, "Design Patterns: Elements of
Reusable Object-Oriented Software", Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, November 1994.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the
Design of Network-based Software
Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of California, Irvine, 2000, <http://
www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk,
H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-
Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC5989] Roach, A., "A SIP Event Package for Subscribing
to Changes to an HTTP Resource", RFC 5989,
October 2010.
[RFC6202] Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., and
G. Wilkins, "Known Issues and Best Practices
for the Use of Long Polling and Streaming in
Bidirectional HTTP", RFC 6202, April 2011.
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments
(CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, August 2012.
Appendix A. Examples
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
A.1. Client/Server Examples
Observed CLIENT SERVER Actual
t State | | State
____________ | | ____________
1 | |
2 unknown | | 18.5 Cel
3 +----->| Header: GET 0x41011633
4 | GET | Token: 0x4a
5 | | Uri-Path: temperature
6 | | Observe: (empty)
7 | |
8 | |
9 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x61451633
10 | 2.05 | Token: 0x4a
11 18.5 Cel | | Observe: 9
12 | | Max-Age: 15
13 | | Payload: "18.5 Cel"
14 | |
15 | | ____________
16 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x51457b50
17 | 2.05 | 19.2 Cel Token: 0x4a
18 19.2 Cel | | Observe: 16
29 | | Max-Age: 15
20 | | Payload: "19.2 Cel"
21 | |
Figure 3: A client registers and receives one notification of the
current state and one of a new state upon a state change
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Observed CLIENT SERVER Actual
t State | | State
____________ | | ____________
22 | |
23 19.2 Cel | | 19.2 Cel
24 | | ____________
25 | X----+ Header: 2.05 0x51457b51
26 | 2.05 | 19.7 Cel Token: 0x4a
27 | | Observe: 25
28 | | Max-Age: 15
29 | | Payload: "19.7 Cel"
30 | |
31 ____________ | |
32 | |
33 19.2 Cel | |
34 (stale) | |
35 | |
36 | |
37 | |
38 +----->| Header: GET 0x41011634
39 | GET | Token: 0xb2
40 | | Uri-Path: temperature
41 | | Observe: (empty)
42 | |
43 | |
44 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x61451634
45 | 2.05 | Token: 0xb2
46 19.7 Cel | | Observe: 44
47 | | Max-Age: 15
48 | | ETag: 0x78797a7a79
49 | | Payload: "19.7 Cel"
50 | |
Figure 4: The client re-registers after Max-Age ends
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Observed CLIENT SERVER Actual
t State | | State
____________ | | ____________
51 | |
52 19.7 Cel | | 19.7 Cel
53 | |
54 | | ____________
55 | crash
56 |
57 |
58 |
59 ____________ |
60 |
61 19.7 Cel |
62 (stale) |
63 | reboot____________
64 | |
65 | | 20.0 Cel
66 | |
67 +----->| Header: GET 0x41011635
68 | GET | Token: 0xf9
69 | | Uri-Path: temperature
70 | | Observe: (empty)
71 | | ETag: 0x78797a7a79
72 | |
73 | |
74 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x61451635
75 | 2.05 | Token: 0xf9
76 20.0 Cel | | Observe: 74
77 | | Max-Age: 15
78 | | Payload: "20.0 Cel"
79 | |
80 | | ____________
81 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.03 0x5143aa0c
82 | 2.03 | 19.7 Cel Token: 0xf9
83 19.7 Cel | | Observe: 81
84 | | ETag: 0x78797a7a79
85 | | Max-Age: 15
86 | |
Figure 5: The client re-registers and gives the server the
opportunity to select a stored response
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Observed CLIENT SERVER Actual
t State | | State
____________ | | ____________
87 | |
88 19.7 Cel | | 19.7 Cel
89 | |
90 | | ____________
91 ____________ |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x4145aa0f
92 | 2.05 | 19.3 Cel Token: 0xf9
93 19.3 Cel | | Observe: 91
94 | | Max-Age: 15
95 | | Payload: "19.3 Cel"
96 | |
97 | |
98 +- - ->| Header: 0x7000aa0f
99 | |
100 | |
101 | |
102 | | ____________
103 | |
104 | | 19.0 Cel
105 | |
106 ____________ | |
107 | |
108 19.3 Cel | |
109 (stale) | |
110 | |
Figure 6: The client rejects a notification and thereby cancels the
observation
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
A.2. Proxy Examples
CLIENT PROXY SERVER
| | |
| +----->| Header: GET 0x41015fb8
| | GET | Token: 0x1a
| | | Uri-Host: sensor.example
| | | Uri-Path: status
| | | Observe: (empty)
| | |
| |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x61455fb8
| | 2.05 | Token: 0x1a
| | | Observe: 42
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "ready"
| | |
+----->| | Header: GET 0x41011633
| GET | | Token: 0x9a
| | | Proxy-Uri: coap://sensor.example/status
| | |
|<-----+ | Header: 2.05 0x61451633
| 2.05 | | Token: 0x9a
| | | Max-Age: 53
| | | Payload: "ready"
| | |
| |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x514505fc0
| | 2.05 | Token: 0x1a
| | | Observe: 135
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "busy"
| | |
+----->| | Header: GET 0x41011634
| GET | | Token: 0x9b
| | | Proxy-Uri: coap://sensor.example/status
| | |
|<-----+ | Header: 2.05 0x61451634
| 2.05 | | Token: 0x9b
| | | Max-Age: 49
| | | Payload: "busy"
| | |
Figure 7: A proxy observes a resource to keep its cache up to date
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
CLIENT PROXY SERVER
| | |
+----->| | Header: GET 0x41011635
| GET | | Token: 0x6a
| | | Proxy-Uri: coap://sensor.example/status
| | | Observe: (empty)
| | |
|<- - -+ | Header: 0x60001635
| | |
| +----->| Header: GET 0x4101af90
| | GET | Token: 0xaa
| | | Uri-Host: sensor.example
| | | Uri-Path: status
| | | Observe: (empty)
| | |
| |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x6145af90
| | 2.05 | Token: 0xaa
| | | Observe: 67
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "ready"
| | |
|<-----+ | Header: 2.05 0x4145af94
| 2.05 | | Token: 0x6a
| | | Observe: 17346
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "ready"
| | |
+- - ->| | Header: 0x6000af94
| | |
| |<-----+ Header: 2.05 0x51455a20
| | 2.05 | Token: 0xaa
| | | Observe: 157
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "busy"
| | |
|<-----+ | Header: 2.05 0x5145af9b
| 2.05 | | Token: 0x6a
| | | Observe: 17436
| | | Max-Age: 60
| | | Payload: "busy"
| | |
Figure 8: A client observes a resource through a proxy
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
Appendix B. Changelog
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.]
Changes from ietf-10 to ietf-11:
o Pointed out that client and server clocks may differ in their
realization of the SI second, and added robustness to the existing
reordering scheme by reducing the maximum notification rate to
32768 notifications per second (#341).
Changes from ietf-09 to ietf-10:
o Required consistent sequence numbers across requests (#333).
o Clarified that a server needs to update the entry in the list of
observers instead of adding a new entry if the endpoint/token pair
is already present.
o Allowed that a client uses a token that is currently in use to
ensure that it's still in the list of observers. This is possible
because sequence numbers are now consistent across requests and
servers won't add a new entry for the same token.
o Improved text on the transmission of non-confirmable notifications
to match Section 3.1.2 of RFC 5405 more closely.
o Updated examples to use UCUM units.
o Moved Appendix B into the introduction.
Changes from ietf-08 to ietf-09:
o Removed the side effects of requests on existing observations.
This includes removing that
* the client can use a GET request to cancel an observation;
* the server updates the entry in the list of observers instead
of adding a new entry if the client is already present (#258,
#281).
o Clarified that a resource (and hence an observation relationship)
is identified by the request options that are part of the Cache-
Key (#258).
o Clarified that a non-2.xx notification MUST NOT include an Observe
Option.
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
o Moved block-wise transfer of notifications to [I-D.ietf-core-
block].
Changes from ietf-07 to ietf-08:
o Expanded text on transmitting a notification while a previous
transmission is pending (#242).
o Changed reordering detection to use a fixed time span of 128
seconds instead of EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (#276).
o Removed the use of the freshness model to determine if the client
is still on the list of observers. This includes removing that
* the client assumes that it has been removed from the list of
observers when Max-Age ends;
* the server sets the Max-Age Option of a notification to a value
that indicates when the server will send the next notification;
* the server uses a number of retransmit attempts such that
removing a client from the list of observers before Max-Age
ends is avoided (#235);
* the server may remove the client from all lists of observers
when the transmission of a confirmable notification ultimately
times out.
o Changed that an unrecognized critical option in a request must
actually have no effect on the state of any observation
relationship to any resource, as the option could lead to a
different target resource.
o Clarified that client implementations must be prepared to receive
each notification equally as a confirmable or a non-confirmable
message, regardless of the message type of the request and of any
previous notification.
o Added a requirement for sending a confirmable notification at
least every 24 hours before continuing with non-confirmable
notifications (#221).
o Added congestion control considerations from [I-D.bormann-core-
congestion-control-02].
o Recommended that the client waits for a randomized time after the
freshness of the latest notification expired before re-
registering. This prevents that multiple clients observing a
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
resource perform a GET request at the same time when the need to
re-register arises.
o Changed reordering detection from 'MAY' to 'SHOULD', as the goal
of the protocol (to keep the observed state as closely in sync
with the actual state as possible) is not optional.
o Fixed the length of the Observe Option (3 bytes) in the table in
Section 2.
o Replaced the 'x' in the No-Cache-Key column in the table in
Section 2 with a '-', as the Observe Option doesn't have the No-
Cache-Key flag set, even though it is not part of the cache key.
o Updated examples.
Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07:
o Moved to 24-bit sequence numbers to allow for up to 15000
notifications per second per client and resource (#217).
o Re-numbered option number to use Unsafe/Safe and Cache-Key
compliant numbers (#241).
o Clarified how to react to a Reset message that is sent in reply to
a non-confirmable notification (#225).
o Clarified the semantics of the "obs" link target attribute (#236).
Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06:
o Improved abstract and introduction to say that the protocol is
about best effort and eventual consistency (#219).
o Clarified that the value of the Observe Option in a request must
have zero length.
o Added requirement that the sequence number must be updated each
time a server retransmits a notification.
o Clarified that a server must remove a client from the list of
observers when it receives a GET request with an unrecognized
critical option.
o Updated the text to use the endpoint concept from
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] (#224).
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
o Improved the reordering text (#223).
Changes from ietf-04 to ietf-05:
o Recommended that a client does not re-register while a new
notification from the server is still likely to arrive. This is
to avoid that the request of the client and the last notification
after max-age cross over each other (#174).
o Relaxed requirements when sending a Reset message in reply to non-
confirmable notifications.
o Added an implementation note about careless GET requests (#184).
o Updated examples.
Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-04:
o Removed the "Max-OFE" Option.
o Allowed a Reset message in reply to non-confirmable notifications.
o Added a section on cancellation.
o Updated examples.
Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03:
o Separated client-side and server-side requirements.
o Fixed uncertainty if client is still on the list of observers by
introducing a liveliness model based on Max-Age and a new option
called "Max-OFE" (#174).
o Simplified the text on message reordering (#129).
o Clarified requirements for intermediaries.
o Clarified the combination of blockwise transfers with
notifications (#172).
o Updated examples to show how the state observed by the client
becomes eventually consistent with the actual state on the server.
o Added examples for parameterization of observable resource.
Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02:
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
o Removed the requirement of periodic refreshing (#126).
o The new "Observe" Option replaces the "Lifetime" Option.
o Introduced a new mechanism to detect message reordering.
o Changed 2.00 (OK) notifications to 2.05 (Content) notifications.
Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01:
o Changed terminology from "subscriptions" to "observation
relationships" (#33).
o Changed the name of the option to "Lifetime".
o Clarified establishment of observation relationships.
o Clarified that an observation is only identified by the URI of the
observed resource and the identity of the client (#66).
o Clarified rules for establishing observation relationships (#68).
o Clarified conditions under which an observation relationship is
terminated.
o Added explanation on how clients can terminate an observation
relationship before the lifetime ends (#34).
o Clarified that the overriding objective for notifications is
eventual consistency of the actual and the observed state (#67).
o Specified how a server needs to deal with clients not
acknowledging confirmable messages carrying notifications (#69).
o Added a mechanism to detect message reordering (#35).
o Added an explanation of how notifications can be cached,
supporting both the freshness and the validation model (#39, #64).
o Clarified that non-GET requests do not affect observation
relationships, and that GET requests without "Lifetime" Option
affecting relationships is by design (#65).
o Described interaction with blockwise transfers (#36).
o Added Resource Discovery section (#99).
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Observing Resources in CoAP October 2013
o Added IANA Considerations.
o Added Security Considerations (#40).
o Added examples (#38).
Author's Address
Klaus Hartke
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63905
EMail: hartke@tzi.org
Hartke Expires April 18, 2014 [Page 31]