Extended Tokens and Stateless Clients in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-ietf-core-stateless-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (core WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Klaus Hartke | ||
| Last updated | 2019-10-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-hartke-core-stateless | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Telechat review
(of
-06)
Has Nits
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
Ready with Issues
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-05)
Has Issues
OPSDIR Last Call Review
Incomplete, due 2020-04-02
|
||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-core-stateless-02
CoRE Working Group K. Hartke
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 7252, 8323 (if approved) October 21, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 23, 2020
Extended Tokens and Stateless Clients
in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-ietf-core-stateless-02
Abstract
This document provides considerations for alleviating CoAP clients
and intermediaries of keeping per-request state. To facilitate this,
this document additionally introduces a new, optional CoAP protocol
extension for extended token lengths.
This document updates RFCs 7252 and 8323.
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 April 23, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Extended Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Extended Token Length (TKL) Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Discovering Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Extended-Token-Length Capability Option . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Trial-and-Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Stateless Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Serializing Client State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Stateless Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Extended Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Stateless Message Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Extended Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Stateless Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. CoAP Signaling Option Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Updated Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. CoAP over UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. CoAP over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. CoAP over WebSockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] is a RESTful
application-layer protocol for constrained environments [RFC7228].
In CoAP, clients (or intermediaries in the client role) make requests
to servers (or intermediaries in the server role), which satisfy the
requests by returning responses.
While a request is ongoing, a client typically needs to keep some
state that it requires for processing the response when it arrives.
Identification of this state is done by means of a _token_ in CoAP,
an opaque sequence of bytes chosen by the client and included in the
CoAP request, which is returned by the server verbatim in any
resulting CoAP response (Figure 1).
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
+-----------------+ request with +------------+
| | | state identifier | |
| | | as token | |
| .-<-+->------|--------------------->|------. |
| _|_ | | | |
| / \ stored | | | |
| \___/ state | | | |
| | | | | |
| '->-+-<------|<---------------------|------' |
| | | response with | |
| v | token echoed back | |
+-----------------+ +------------+
Client Server
Figure 1: Token as an Identifier for Request State
In some scenarios, it can be beneficial to reduce the amount of state
that is stored at the client at the cost of increased message sizes.
A client can opt into this by serializing (parts of) its state into
the token itself and then recovering this state from the token in the
response (Figure 2).
+-----------------+ request with +------------+
| | | serialized state | |
| | | as token | |
| +--------|=====================>|------. |
| | | | |
| look ma, | | | |
| no state! | | | |
| | | | |
| +--------|<=====================|------' |
| | | response with | |
| v | token echoed back | |
+-----------------+ +------------+
Client Server
Figure 2: Token as Serialization of Request State
Section 3 of this document provides considerations clients opting
into becoming "stateless" in this way. (As those considerations will
show, the term "stateless" is not entirely accurate. The clients
still need to maintain per-server state and other kinds of state. So
it is more accurate to say the these clients are just avoiding per-
request state.)
Serializing state into tokens is complicated by the fact that both
CoAP over UDP [RFC7252] and CoAP over reliable transports [RFC8323]
limit the maximum token length to 8 bytes. To overcome this
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
limitation, Section 2 of this document first introduces a CoAP
protocol extension for extended token lengths.
While the use case (avoiding per-request state) and the mechanism
(extended token lengths) presented in this document are closely
related, both can be used independently of each other: Some
implementations may be able to fit their state in just 8 bytes; some
implementations may have other use cases for extended token lengths.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the term "stateless" refers to an implementation
strategy for a client (or intermediary in the client role) that does
not require it to keep state for the individual requests it sends to
a server (or intermediary in the server role). The client still
needs to keep state for each server it communicates with (e.g., for
token generation, message retransmission, and congestion control).
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.
2. Extended Tokens
This document updates the message formats defined for CoAP over UDP
[RFC7252] and CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets [RFC8323] with a new
definition of the TKL field.
2.1. Extended Token Length (TKL) Field
The definition of the TKL field is updated as follows:
Token Length (TKL): 4-bit unsigned integer. A value between 0 and
12 inclusive indicates the length of the variable-length Token
field in bytes. Three values are reserved for special constructs:
13: An 8-bit unsigned integer precedes the Token field and
indicates the length of the Token field minus 13.
14: A 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte order precedes the
Token field and indicates the length of the Token field minus
269.
15: Reserved. This value MUST NOT be sent and MUST be processed
as a message format error.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
This increases the maximum token length that can be represented in a
message to 65804 bytes. The maximum token length that sender and
recipient implementations support may be more limited. For example,
a constrained node of Class 1 [RFC7228] might support extended token
lengths only up to 32 bytes.
All other fields retain their definition.
The updated message formats are illustrated in Appendix A.
2.2. Discovering Support
Extended token lengths require support from the server. Support can
be discovered by a client in one of two ways:
o Where Capabilities and Settings Messages (CSMs) are available,
such as in CoAP over TCP, support can be discovered using the
Extended-Token-Length Capability Option defined in Section 2.2.1.
o Otherwise, such as in CoAP over UDP, support can only be
discovered by trial-and-error, as described in Section 2.2.2.
2.2.1. Extended-Token-Length Capability Option
A server can use the elective Extended-Token-Length Capability Option
to indicate the maximum length of a token in bytes that it accepts in
requests.
+----+---+---+--------+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+
| # | C | R | Applie | Name | Forma | Length | Base |
| | | | s to | | t | | Value |
+----+---+---+--------+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+
| TB | | | CSM | Extended-Token- | uint | 0-3 | 8 |
| D | | | | Length | | | |
+----+---+---+--------+--------------------+-------+--------+-------+
C=Critical, R=Repeatable
Table 1: The Extended-Token-Length Capability Option
As per Section 3 of RFC 7252, the base value (and the value used when
this option is not implemented) is 8.
The active value of the Extended-Token-Length Option is replaced each
time the option is sent with a modified value. Its starting value is
its base value.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
The option value MUST NOT be less than 8 or greater than 65804. When
an option value outside this range is received, the value MUST be
clamped to be within this range.
Any option value greater than 8 implies support for the new
definition of the TKL field specified in Section 2.1. Indication of
support by a server does not oblige a client to actually make use of
token lengths greater than 8.
If a server receives a request with a token of a length greater than
it indicated in its Extended-Token-Length Option, it MUST handle the
request as a message format error.
Note: The Extended-Token-Length Capability Option does not apply to
responses. The sender of a request is simply expected not to send
a token of a length greater than it is willing to accept in a
response.
2.2.2. Trial-and-Error
A server that does not support the updated definition of the TKL
field specified in Section 2.1 will consider a request with a TKL
field value outside the range 0 to 8 a message format error and
rejected it (Section 3 of RFC 7252). A client can therefore
determine support by sending a request with an extended token length
and checking whether it's rejected by the server or not.
In CoAP over UDP, a Confirmable message with a message format error
is rejected with a Reset message (Section 4.2 of RFC 7252). A Non-
confirmable message with a message format error may be rejected with
a Reset message or just silently ignored (Section 4.3 of RFC 7252).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that clients use a Confirmable message
for determining support.
As per RFC 7252, Reset messages are empty and do not contain a token;
they only return the Message ID (Figure 3). They also do not contain
any indication of what caused a message format error. To avoid any
ambiguity, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that clients use a request
that has no potential message format error other than the extended
token length.
An example of a suitable request is a Confirmable GET request that
includes an If-None-Match option and a token of the greatest length
that the client intends to use. Any response with the same token
echoed back indicates that tokens up to that length are supported by
the server.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
+-----------------+ request message +------------+
| | | with extended | |
| | | token length | |
| .-<-+->------|--------------------->|------. |
| _|_ | | | |
| / \ stored | | | |
| \___/ state | | | |
| | | | | |
| '->-+-<------|<---------------------|------' |
| | | reset message | |
| v | with only message | |
+-----------------+ ID echoed back +------------+
Client Server
Figure 3: A Confirmable Request With an Extended Token is Rejected
With a Reset Message if the Server Does Not Have Support
A client SHOULD NOT assume that extended token lengths are supported
by a server 60 minutes after receiving a response with an extended
token length, as network addresses may change.
If a server supports extended token lengths but receives a request
with a token of a length it is unwilling or unable to handle, it MUST
NOT reject the message. Instead, it SHOULD return a 5.03 (Service
Unavailable) response. (Returning this response requires that the
server implementation is able to return a token of any length, even
if it otherwise cannot handle tokens of that length.)
Design Note: For simplicity, no mechanism to indicate the maximum
supported token length is defined: A client implementation would
probably already choose the shortest token possible for the task
(such as being stateless, as described in Section 3), so it
probably would not be able to reduce the length any further
anyway, should a server indicate a lower limit.
2.3. Intermediaries
Tokens are a hop-by-hop feature: If there are one or more
intermediaries between a client and a server, every token is scoped
to the exchange between a node in the client role and the node in the
server role that it is immediately interacting with (the "next hop").
When an intermediary receives a request, the only requirement is that
it echoes the token back in any resulting response. There is no
requirement or expectation that an intermediary passes a client's
token on to a server or that an intermediary uses extended token
lengths itself in a request to satisfy a request with an extended
token length. Discovery needs to be performed for each pair of hops.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
3. Stateless Clients
A client can be alleviated of keeping per-request state by
serializing the state into a sequence of bytes and sending the bytes
as the token of the request. The server returns the token verbatim
in the response to the client, which allows the client to recover the
state and process the response as if it had kept the state locally.
The format of the serialized state is generally an implementation
detail of the client and opaque to any server. However, transporting
client state in requests and responses has significant security and
privacy implications that need to be taken into consideration by a
client implementation.
Furthermore, there are several non-obvious implications from CoAP
protocol features that should be taken into consideration by a client
implementation.
The following subsections discuss some of these considerations.
3.1. Serializing Client State
Serialized state information is an attractive target for both
unwanted nodes (attackers between the node in client role and the
next hop) and wanted nodes (the next hop itself) on the path.
Therefore, a node in the client role SHOULD integrity protect the
state information, unless processing a response does not modify state
or cause any other significant side effects.
Even when the serialized state is integrity protected, an attacker
may still replay a response, making the client believe it sent the
same request twice. Therefore, the node in client role SHOULD
implement replay protection (e.g., by using sequence numbers and a
replay window), unless processing a response does not modify state or
cause other any significant side effects. Integrity protection is
REQUIRED for replay protection.
If processing a response without keeping request state is sensitive
to the time elapsed to sending the request, then the serialized state
SHOULD include freshness information (e.g., a timestamp).
Information in the serialized state may be privacy sensitive. A node
in client role SHOULD encrypt the serialized state if it contains
privacy sensitive information that an attacker would not get
otherwise. For example, an intermediary that serializes client
information into its token leaks that information to the next hop,
which may be undesirable.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
3.2. Stateless Intermediaries
Tokens are a hop-by-hop feature: If a client makes a request to an
intermediary, that intermediary needs to store the client's token
(along with the client's transport address) while it makes its own
request to the next hop towards the origin server and waits for the
response. When the intermediary receives the response, it looks up
the client's token and transport address for the received request and
sends an appropriate response to the client.
Such an intermediary might want to be "stateless" as well, i.e., be
alleviated of storing the client's token and transport address for
received requests. This can be implemented by serializing this
information along the request state into the token to the next hop.
When the next hop returns the response, the intermediary can recover
the information from the token and use it to satisfy the client's
request.
The drawback of this approach is that an intermediary, without
keeping request state, is unable to aggregate multiple requests for
the same target resource, which can significantly reduce efficiency.
In particular, when multiple clients observe [RFC7641] the same
resource, aggregating requests is REQUIRED (Section 3.1 of RFC 7641).
This requirement cannot be satisfied without keeping request state;
therefore, an intermediary MUST NOT include an Observe Option in
requests it sends without keeping request state.
When using block-wise transfers [RFC7959], a server might not be able
to distinguish blocks originating from different clients once they
have been forwarded by an intermediary. To ensure that this does not
lead to inconsistent resource state, a stateless intermediary MUST
include the Request-Tag Option [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag] in
block-wise transfers with a value that uniquely identifies the client
in the intermediary's namespace.
3.3. Extended Tokens
A client (or intermediary in the role of a client) that depends on
support for extended token lengths (Section 2) from the next hop to
avoid keeping request state SHOULD perform a discovery of support
(Section 2.2) before it can be stateless.
This discovery MUST be performed in a stateful way, i.e., keeping
state for the request (Figure 4): If the client was stateless from
the start and the next hop does not support extended tokens, then any
error message could not be processed since the state would neither be
present at the client nor returned in the Reset message (Figure 5).
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
+-----------------+ dummy request +------------+
| | | with extended | |
| | | token | |
| .-<-+->------|=====================>|------. |
| _|_ | | | |
| / \ stored | | | |
| \___/ state | | | |
| | | | | |
| '->-+-<------|<=====================|------' |
| | | response with | |
| | | extended token | |
| | | echoed back | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | request with | |
| | | serialized state | |
| | | as token | |
| +--------|=====================>|------. |
| | | | |
| look ma, | | | |
| no state! | | | |
| | | | |
| +--------|<=====================|------' |
| | | response with | |
| v | token echoed back | |
+-----------------+ +------------+
Client Server
Figure 4: Depending on Extended Tokens for Being Stateless First
Requires a Successful Stateful Discovery of Support
+-----------------+ dummy request +------------+
| | | with extended | |
| | | token | |
| +--------|=====================>|------. |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| ???|<---------------------|------' |
| | reset message | |
| | with only message | |
+-----------------+ ID echoed back +------------+
Client Server
Figure 5: Stateless Discovery of Support Does Not Work
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
In environments where support can be reliably discovered through some
other means, the discovery of support is OPTIONAL. An example for
this is the Constrained Join Protocol (CoJP) in a 6TiSCH network
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security], where support for extended tokens
is required from all relevant parties.
3.4. Stateless Message Transmission
As a further step, a client (or intermediary in the client role)
might want to also avoid keeping message transmission state when
using CoAP over UDP [RFC7252].
Generally, a client can use Confirmable or Non-confirmable messages
for requests. When using Confirmable messages, it needs to keep
message exchange state for performing retransmissions and handling
Acknowledgement and Reset messages. When using Non-confirmable
messages, it can keep no message exchange state. (However, in either
case the client needs to keep congestion control state. That is, it
needs to maintain state for each node it communicates with and, e.g.,
enforce NSTART.)
As per RFC 7252, a client must be prepared to receive a response as a
piggybacked response, a separate response or Non-confirmable response
(Section 5.2 of RFC 7252), regardless of the message type used for
the request. A stateless client MUST handle these response types as
follows:
o If a piggybacked response passes the token integrity protection
and freshness checks, the client processes the message as
specified in RFC 7252; otherwise, it silently discards the
message.
o If a separate response passes the token integrity protection and
freshness checks, the client processes the message as specified in
RFC 7252; otherwise, it rejects the message as specified in
Section 4.2 of RFC 7252.
o If a Non-confirmable response passes the token integrity
protection and freshness checks, the client processes the message
as specified in RFC 7252; otherwise, it rejects the message as
specified in Section 4.3 of RFC 7252.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
4. Security Considerations
4.1. Extended Tokens
Tokens significantly larger than the 8 bytes specified in RFC 7252
have implications in particular for nodes with constrained memory
size that need to be mitigated. A node in the server role supporting
extended token lengths may be vulnerable to a denial-of-service when
an attacker (either on-path or a malicious client) sends large tokens
to fill up the memory of the node. Implementations should be
prepared to handle such messages.
4.2. Stateless Clients
Transporting the state needed by a client to process a response as
serialized state information in the token has several significant and
non-obvious security and privacy implications that need to be
mitigated; see Section 3.1.
The use of encryption, integrity protection, and replay protection of
serialized state is recommended in general, unless a careful analysis
of any potential attacks to security and privacy is performed. AES-
CCM with a 64 bit tag is recommended, combined with a sequence number
and a replay window. Where encryption is not needed, HMAC-SHA-256,
combined with a sequence number and a replay window, may be used.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. CoAP Signaling Option Number
The following entries are added to the "CoAP Signaling Option
Numbers" registry within the "CoRE Parameters" registry.
+------------+--------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| Applies to | Number | Name | Reference |
+------------+--------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| 7.01 | TBD | Extended-Token-Length | [[this document]] |
+------------+--------+-----------------------+-------------------+
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]
Amsuess, C., Mattsson, J., and G. Selander, "CoAP: Echo,
Request-Tag, and Token Processing", draft-ietf-core-echo-
request-tag-07 (work in progress), September 2019.
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
[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>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security]
Vucinic, M., Simon, J., Pister, K., and M. Richardson,
"Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH", draft-ietf-
6tisch-minimal-security-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
Appendix A. Updated Message Formats
This appendix illustrates the CoAP message formats updated with the
new definition of the TKL field (Section 2).
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
A.1. CoAP over UDP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-------+-------+---------------+
| | | |
| Ver | T | TKL | 1 byte
| | | |
+-------+-------+---------------+
| |
| Code | 1 byte
| |
+-------------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+- Message ID -+ 2 bytes
| |
| |
| |
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ TKL / 0-2 bytes
\ (extended) \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ Token / 0 or more bytes
\ \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Options / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+---------------+---------------+
| | |
| 15 | 15 | 1 byte (if payload)
| | |
+---------------+---------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Payload / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+-------------------------------+
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
A.2. CoAP over TCP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---------------+---------------+
| | |
| Len | TKL | 1 byte
| | |
+---------------+---------------+
\ \
/ Len / 0-2 bytes
\ (extended) \
+-------------------------------+
| |
| Code | 1 byte
| |
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ TKL / 0-2 bytes
\ (extended) \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ Token / 0 or more bytes
\ \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Options / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+---------------+---------------+
| | |
| 15 | 15 | 1 byte (if payload)
| | |
+---------------+---------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Payload / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+-------------------------------+
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
A.3. CoAP over WebSockets
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---------------+---------------+
| | |
| 0 | TKL | 1 byte
| | |
+---------------+---------------+
| |
| Code | 1 byte
| |
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ TKL / 0-2 bytes
\ (extended) \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ Token / 0 or more bytes
\ \
+-------------------------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Options / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+---------------+---------------+
| | |
| 15 | 15 | 1 byte (if payload)
| | |
+---------------+---------------+
\ \
/ /
\ \
/ Payload / 0 or more bytes
\ \
/ /
\ \
+-------------------------------+
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-DraftExtended Tokens and Stateless Clients in CoAP October 2019
Acknowledgements
This document is based on the requirements of and work on the Minimal
Security Framework for 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-minimal-security] by
Malisa Vucinic, Jonathan Simon, Kris Pister, and Michael Richardson.
Thanks to Christian Amsuess, Carsten Bormann, Thomas Fossati, Ari
Keranen, John Mattsson, Jim Schaad, Goeran Selander, and Malisa
Vucinic for helpful comments and discussions that have shaped the
document.
Author's Address
Klaus Hartke
Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan 23
Stockholm SE-16483
Sweden
Email: klaus.hartke@ericsson.com
Hartke Expires April 23, 2020 [Page 17]