CoAP Communication with Alternative Transports
draft-silverajan-core-coap-alternative-transports-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bill Silverajan , Teemu Savolainen | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-14 | ||
| RFC stream | (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-silverajan-core-coap-alternative-transports-04
CoRE Working Group B. Silverajan
Internet-Draft Tampere University of Technology
Intended status: Informational T. Savolainen
Expires: August 18, 2014 Nokia
February 14, 2014
CoAP Communication with Alternative Transports
draft-silverajan-core-coap-alternative-transports-04
Abstract
CoAP is being standardised as an application level REST-based
protocol. A single CoAP message is typically encapsulated and
transmitted using UDP or DTLS as transports. These transports are
optimal solutions for CoAP use in IP-based constrained environments
and nodes. However compelling motivation exists for understanding
how CoAP can operate with other transports, such as the need for M2M
communication using non-IP networks, improved transport level end-to-
end reliability and security, NAT and firewall traversal issues, and
mechanisms possibly incurring a lower overhead to CoAP/HTTP
translation gateways. This draft examines the requirements for
conveying CoAP packets to end points over such alternative
transports. It also provides URI solutions for representing CoAP
resources over alternative transports.
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 August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Usage Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Use of SMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Use of WebSockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Use of P2P Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Use of TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Node Types based on Transport Availability . . . . . . . . . 5
4. CoAP Transport URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Transport information in URI scheme . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Transport information as part of the URI authority . . . 9
4.3.1. Usage of DNS records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Making CoAP Resources Available over Multiple Transports 10
5. Alternative Transport Analysis and Properties . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [I-D.ietf-core-coap] is
being standardised by the CoRE WG as a lightweight, HTTP-like
protocol providing a request/response model that constrained nodes
can use to communicate with other nodes, be those servers, proxies,
gateways, less constrained nodes, or other constrained nodes.
As the Internet continues taking shape by integrating new kinds of
networks, services and devices, the need for a consistent,
lightweight method for resource representation, retrieval and
manipulation becomes evident. Owing to its simplicity and low
overhead, CoAP is a highly suitable protocol for this purpose.
However, the CoAP endpoint can reside in a non-IP network, be
separated from its peer by NATs and firewalls or simply has no
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
possibility to communicate over UDP. Consequently in addition to
UDP, alternative transport channels for conveying CoAP packets could
be considered.
Extending CoAP-based resource retrieval over alternative transports
allows implementations to have a significantly larger relevance in
constrained as well as non-constrained networked environments. It
leads to better code optimisation in constrained nodes and broader
implementation reuse across new transport channels. As opposed to
implementing new resource retrieval schemes, an application in an
end-node can continue relying on using CoAP's REST-based method calls
for this purpose, but lets CoAP's messaging sublayer take into
account the change in end point identification and transport
protocol. This simplifies development and memory requirements.
Resource representations are also visible in an end-to-end manner for
any CoAP client. The processing and computational overhead for
conveying CoAP packets from one underlying transport to another,
would be less than that of an application-level gateway performing
individual packet-based, protocol translation between CoAP to another
resource retrieval scheme.
This document looks at how CoAP can be used by nodes for resource
retrieval, in an end-to-end manner regardless of the transport
channel available. It looks at current usage of CoAP in this regard
today and provides other possible scenarios. A simple transport type
classification is provided. Then we look at the various ways in
which CoAP resource representations can be formulated in URIs over
alternative, which express transport identification in addition to
endpoint information and resource paths. Following that, a
discussion of the various transport properties which influence how
CoAP packets are mapped to transport level payloads, is presented.
This draft however, does not discuss on application QoS requirements,
user policies or network adaptation, nor does it advocate replacing
the current practice of UDP-based CoAP communication.
2. Usage Cases
Apart from UDP and DTLS, CoAP usage is being specified for the
following environments:
2.1. Use of SMS
CoAP Request and Response messages can be sent via SMS between CoAP
end-points in a cellular network [I-D.becker-core-coap-sms-gprs]. A
CoAP Request message can also be sent via SMS from a CoAP client to a
sleeping CoAP Server as a wake-up mechanism and trigger communication
via IP. The Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) specifies both UDP and SMS as
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
transports for M2M communication in cellular networks. The OMA
Lightweight M2M protocol being drafted uses CoAP, and as transports,
specifies both UDP binding as well as Short Message Service (SMS)
bindings [OMALWM2M] for the same reason.
2.2. Use of WebSockets
The WebSocket protocol is being used as a transport channel between
WebSocket enabled CoAP end-points on the Internet
[I-D.savolainen-core-coap-websockets]. This is particularly useful
as a means for web browsers, particularly in smart devices, to allow
embedded client side scripts to upgrade an existing HTTP connection
to a WebSocket connection through which CoAP Request and Response
messages can be exchanged with a WebSocket-enabled server. This also
allows a browser containing an embedded CoAP server to behave as a
WebSocket client by opening a connection to a WebSocket enabled CoAP
Mirror Server to register and update its resources.
2.3. Use of P2P Overlays
[I-D.jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload] specifices how CoAP nodes can use a
peer-to-peer overlay network called RELOAD, as a resource caching
facility for storing wireless sensor data. When a CoAP node
registers its resources with a RELOAD Proxy Node (PN), the node
computes a hash value from the CoAP URI and stores it as a structure
together with the PN's Node ID as well as the resources. Resource
retrieval by CoAP nodes is accomplished by computing the hash key
over the Request URI,opening a connection to the overlay and using
its message routing system to contact the CoAP server via its PN.
2.4. Use of TCP
Using TCP to facilitate the traversal of CoAP Request and Response
messages [I-D.bormann-core-coap-tcp]. This allows easier
communication between CoAP clients and servers separated by firewalls
and NATS. This also allows CoAP messages to be transported over push
notification services from a notification server to a client app on a
smartphone, that may previously have subscribed to receive change
notifications of CoAP resource representations, possibly by using
CoAP Observe-functionality [I-D.ietf-core-observe].
2.5. Others
We also envisage CoAP being extended atop other transport channels,
such as:
1. The transportation of CoAP messages in Delay-Tolerant Networks
[RFC4838], using the Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] for reaching
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
sensors in extremely challenging environments such as acoustic,
underwater and deep space networks.
2. Any type of non-IP networks supporting constrained nodes and low-
energy sensors, such as Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy
(either through L2CAP or with GATT) [BTCorev4.1], ZigBee, Z-Wave,
1-Wire, DASH7 and so on.
3. Instant Messaging and Social Networking channels, such as Jabber
and Twitter.
3. Node Types based on Transport Availability
The term "alternative transport" in this document thus far has been
used to refer to any non-UDP and non-DTLS transport that can convey
CoAP messages in its payload. A node however, may in fact possess
the capability to utilise CoAP over multiple transport channels at
its disposal, simultaneously or otherwise, at any point in time to
communicate with a CoAP end-point. Such communication can obviously
take place over UDP and DTLS as well. Inevitably, if two CoAP
endpoints reside in distinctly separate networks with orthogonal
transports, a CoAP proxy node is needed between the 2 networks so
that CoAP Requests and Responses can be fulfilled properly.
In [I-D.ietf-lwig-terminology], Tables 1, 3 and 4 introduced
classification schemes for devices, in terms of their resource
constraints, energy limitations and communication power. For this
document, in addition to these capabilities, it seems useful to
additionally identify devices based on their transport capabilities.
+-------+----------------------------+
| Name | Transport Availability |
+-------+----------------------------+
| T0 | Single transport |
| | |
| T1 | Multiple transports, with |
| | one or more active at any |
| | point in time |
| | |
| T2 | Multiple active transports|
+-------+----------------------------+
Table 1: Classes of Available Transports
Nodes falling under Type T0 possess the capability of exactly 1 type
of transport channel for CoAP, at all times. These include both
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
active and sleepy nodes, which may choose to perform duty cycling for
power saving.
Type T1 nodes possess multiple different transports, and can perform
CoAP resource retrieval or expose CoAP resources over any or all of
these transports. However, not all transports are constantly active
and certain transport channels and interfaces could be kept in a
mostly-off state for energy-efficiency, such as in section 2.1
Type T2 nodes possess more than 1 transport, and multiple transports
are simultaneously active at all times. CoAP proxy nodes which allow
CoAP endpoints from disparate transports to communicate with each
other, are a good example of this.
4. CoAP Transport URI
Based on the usage scenarios as well as the transport classes
presented in the preceding sections, this section discusses the
formulation of a new URI for representing CoAP resources over
alternative transports.
CoAP is logically divided into 2 sublayers, whereby a request/
response layer is responsible for the protocol functionality of
exchanging request and response messages, while the messaging layer
is bound to UDP. These 2 sublayers are tightly coupled, both being
responsible for properly encoding the header and body of the CoAP
message. The COAP URI is used by both logical sublayers. For a URI
that is expressed generically as
URI = scheme ":" "//" authority path-abempty ["?"query ]
A simple example COAP URI, "coap://server.example.com/sensors/
temperature" can be interpreted as follows:
coap :// server.example.com /sensors/temperature
\___/ \______ ________/ \______ _________/
| \/ \/
protocol endpoint parameterised
identifier identifier resource
identifier
Figure 1: The CoAP URI format
The resource path is explicitly expressed, and the endpoint
identifier, which contains the host address at the network-level is
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
also directly bound to the scheme name containing the application-
level protocol identifier. The choice of a specific transport for a
scheme, however, cannot be embedded with a URI, but is defined by
convention or standardisation of the protocol using the scheme. As
examples, [RFC5092] defines the 'imap' scheme for the IMAP protocol
over TCP, while [RFC2818] requires that the 'https' protocol
identifier be used to differentiate using HTTP over TLS instead of
TCP.
4.1. Design Considerations
Several ways of formulating a URI which express an alternative
transport binding to CoAP, can be envisioned. When such a URI is
provided from an end-application to its CoAP implementation, the URI
component containing transport-specific information can be checked to
allow the CoAP to use the appropriate transport for a target endpoint
identifier. The following design considerations influence the
formulation of a new URI expressing CoAP resources over alternative
transports:
1. The generic syntax for a URI is described in [RFC3986].
Conformance to RFC3986 would also obviate the need for custom URI
parsers as well as resolution algorithms. In particular, how can
a URI format be described in which each URI component clearly
meets the syntax and percent-encoding rules described?
2. When relative references are encountered, [RFC3986] also
establishes how they can be resolved against a base URI by
providing an algorithm. Given this algorithm, how can a URI
format be described in which relative reference resolution does
not result in a target URI that loses its transport-specific
information?
3. URIs are designed to uniquely identify resources. When a single
resource is represented with multiple URIs (for example, an owner
of two different domains deciding to serve the same resource from
both), URI aliasing [WWWArchv1] occurs. Avoiding URI aliasing is
considered good practice. However, when a node of Type T1 or T2
exposes a resource over multiple transport end-points, URI
aliasing can occur if transport-specific information is embedded
in a URI. How can a URI format be described, which avoids or at
least minimises occurrences of URI aliasing?
4. The host component of current CoAP URIs can either be a numerical
IP address or a fully qualified domain name (FQDN). While the
usage of DNS can sometimes be useful for distinguishing transport
information (see section 4.3.1), accessing DNS over some
alternative transport environments may be challenging.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
Therefore, how can a URI format be described, which expresses
resources without heavy reliance on a naming infrastructure, such
as DNS?
A CoAP Transport URI can also be supplied as a Proxy-Uri option by a
CoAP end-point to a CoAP forward proxy in order to communicate with a
CoAP end-point residing in a network using a different transport.
Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap] provides an algorithm for parsing
a received URI to obtain the request's options. The following
sections outline various choices for URIs that meet some of these
design goals.
4.2. Transport information in URI scheme
The URI scheme can follow a convention of the form "coap+<transport-
name>", where the name of the transport is clearly and unambiguously
described. Each scheme name formed in this manner can be used to
differentiate the use of CoAP over an alternative transport instead
of the use of CoAP over UDP or DTLS. The endpoint identifier, path
and query components together with each scheme name would be used to
uniquely identify each resource.
Examples of such URIs are:
o coap+tcp://[2001:db8::1]:5683/sensors/temperature for using CoAP
over TCP
o coap+sms://0015105550101/sensors/temperature for using CoAP over
SMS or USSD with the endpoint identifier being a telephone
subscriber number
o coap+ws://www.example.com/WebSocket?/sensors/temperature for using
CoAP over WebSockets with the endpoint at ws://www.example.com/
WebSocket
Note: Expressing target address formats other than IPv6 literal
addresses with '[' and ']' characters within this URI format, such as
Bluetooth, is as yet unresolved.
A new URI of this format to distinguish transport types is simple to
understand and generally not dissimilar to the CoAP URI format. It
is however entirely possible for each new scheme to specify its own
rules for how resource and transport endpoint information can be
presented. The URI meets many of the design goals described,
although URI aliasing cannot be avoided for multiple transport end-
points. As the usage of each alternative transport results in an
entirely new scheme, IANA intervention is required for the
registration of each scheme name. The registration process follows
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
the guidelines stipulated in [RFC4395], particularly where permanent
URI scheme registration is concerned.
4.3. Transport information as part of the URI authority
A single URI scheme, "coap-at" can be introduced, as part of an
absolute URI which expresses the transport information within the
authority component. One approach is to structure the component with
a transport prefix to the endpoint identifier and a delimiter, such
as "<transport-name>-endpoint_identifier".
Examples of resulting URIs are:
o coap-at://tcp-server.example.com/sensors/temperature
o coap-at://sms-0015105550101/sensors/temperature
An implementation note here is that some generic URI parsers will
fail when encountering a URI such as "coap-at://tcp-[2001:db8::1]/
sensors/temperature". Consequently, an equivalent, but parseable URI
from the ip6.arpa domain needs to be formulated instead. For
[2001:db8::1] using TCP, this would result in the following URL:
coap-at://tcp-1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0
.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa:5683/sensors/temperature
Usage of an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address such as [::ffff.192.100.0.1] can
similarly be expressed with a URI from the ip6.arpa domain.
This URI format allows the usage of a single scheme to represent
multiple types of transport end-points. Consequently, it requires
consistency in ensuring how various transport-specific endpoints are
identified, as a single URI format is used. Attention must be paid
towards the syntax rules and encoding for the URI host component.
Additionally, against a base URI of the form "coap-at://tcp-
server.example.com/sensors/temperature", resolving a relative
reference, such as "//example.net/sensors/temperature" would result
in the target URI "coap-at://example.net/sensors/temperature", in
which transport information is lost. As with the URI presented
previously in Section 4.2, URI aliasing issues persist with this
format too.
4.3.1. Usage of DNS records
DNS names can be used instead of IPv6 address literals to mitigate
lengthy URLs referring to the ip6.arpa domain, if usage of DNS is
possible.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
DNS SRV records can also be employed to formulate a URL such as:
coap-at://srv-_coap._tcp.example.com/sensors/temperature
in which the "srv" prefix is used to indicate that a DNS SRV lookup
should be used for _coap._tcp.example.com, where usage of CoAP over
TCP is specified for example.com, and is eventually resolved to a
numerical IPv4 or IPv6 address.
4.4. Making CoAP Resources Available over Multiple Transports
The CoAP URI used thus far is as follows:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty
A new URI format could be introduced, that does not possess an
"authority" component, and instead defining "hier-part" to instead
use another component, "path-rootless", as specified by RFC3986
[RFC3986]. The partial ABNF format of this URI would then be:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
hier-part = path-rootless
path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
The full syntax of "path-rootless" is described in [RFC3986]. A
generic URI defined this way would conform to the syntax of
[RFC3986], while the path component can be treated as an opaque
string to indicate transport types, endpoints as well as paths to
CoAP resources. A single scheme can similarly be used.
A constrained node that is capable of communicating over several
types of transports (such as UDP, TCP and SMS) would be able to
convey a single CoAP resources over multiple transports. This is
also beneficial for nodes performing caching and proxying from one
type of transport to another.
Requesting and retrieving the same CoAP resource representation over
multiple transports could be rendered possible by prefixing the
transport type and endpoint identifier information to the CoAP URI.
This would result in the following example representation:
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
coap-at:tcp://example.com?coap://example.com/sensors/temperature
\_______ ______/ \________________ __________________/
\/ \/
Transport-specific CoAP Resource
Prefix
Figure 2: Prefixing a CoAP URI with TCP transport
Such a representation would result in the URI being decomposed into
its constituent components, with the CoAP resource residing within
the query component as follows:
Scheme: coap-at
Path: tcp://example.com
Query: coap://example.com/sensors/temperature
The same CoAP resource, if requested over a WebSocket transport,
would result the following URI:
coap-at:ws://example.com/endpoint?coap://example.com/sensors/temperature
\___________ __________/ \_______________ ___________________/
\/ \/
Transport-specific CoAP Resource
Prefix
Figure 3: Prefixing a CoAP URI with WebSocket transport
While the transport prefix changes, the CoAP resource representation
remains the same in the query component:
Scheme: coap-at
Path: ws://example.com/endpoint
Query: coap://example.com/sensors/temperature
The URI format described here overcomes the URI aliasing when
multiple transports are used, by ensuring each CoAP resource
representation remains the same, but is prefixed with different
transports. However, against a base URI of this format, resolving
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
relative references of the form "//example.net/sensors/temperature"
and "/sensor2/temperature" would again result in target URIs which
lose transport-specific information.
Implementation note: While square brackets are disallowed within the
path component, the '[' and ']' characters needed to enclose a
literal IPv6 address can be percent-encoded into their respective
equivalents. The ':' character does not need to be percent-encoded.
This results in a significantly simpler URI string compared to
section 2.2, particularly for compressed IPv6 addresses.
Additionally, the URI format can be used to specify other similar
address families and formats, such as Bluetooth addresses
[BTCorev4.1].
5. Alternative Transport Analysis and Properties
In this section we consider the various characteristics of
alternative transports for successfully supporting various kinds of
functionality for CoAP. CoAP factors lossiness, unreliability, small
packet sizes and connection statelessness into its protocol logic.
We discuss general transport differences and their impact on carrying
CoAP packets here. Note that Properties 1, 2, and 3 are related.
Property 1: Uniqueness of an end-point identifier.
Transport protocols providing non-unique end-point IDs for nodes may
only convey a subset of the CoAP functionality. Such nodes may only
serve as CoAP servers that announce data at specific intervals to a
pre-specified end point, or to a shared medium.
Property 2: Unidirectional or bidirectional CoAP communication
support.
This refers to the ability of the CoAP end-point to use a single
transport channel for both request and response messages. Depending
on the scenario, having a unidirectional transport layer would mean
the CoAP end-point might utilise it only for outgoing data or
incoming data. Should both functionalities be needed, 2
unidirectional transport channels would be necessary.
Property 3: 1:N communication support.
This refers to the ability of the transport protocol to support
broadcast and multicast communication. CoAP's request/response
behaviour depends on unicast messaging. Group communication in CoAP
is bound to using multicasting. Therefore a protocol such as TCP
would be ill-suited for group communications using multicast.
Anycast support, where a message is sent to a well defined
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
destination address to which several nodes belong, on the other hand,
is supported by TCP.
Property 4: Transport-level reliability.
This refers to the ability of the transport protocol to provide a
guarantee of reliability against packet loss, ensuring ordered packet
delivery and having error control. When CoAP Request and Response
messages are delivered over such transports, the CoAP implementations
elide certain fields in the packet header. As an example, if the
usage of a connection-oriented transport renders it unnecessary to
specify the various CoAP message types, the Type field can be elided.
For some connection-oriented transports, such as WebSockets, the
version of CoAP being used can be negotiated during the opening
transfer. Consequently, the Version field in CoAP packets can also
be elided.
Property 5: Message encoding.
While parts of the CoAP payload are human readable or are transmitted
in XML, JSON or SenML format, CoAP is essentially a low overhead
binary protocol. Efficient transmission of such packets would
therefore be met with a transport offering binary encoding support,
although techniques exist in allowing binary payloads to be
transferred over text-based transport protocols such as base-64
encoding. A fuller discussion about performing CoAP message encoding
for SMS can be found in Appendix A.5 of [I-D.bormann-coap-misc]
Property 6: Network byte order.
CoAP, as well as transports based on the IP stack use a Big Endian
byte order for transmitting packets over the air or wire, while
transports based on Bluetooth and Zigbee prefer Little Endian byte
ordering for packet fields and transmission. Any CoAP implementation
that potentially uses multiple transports has to ensure correct byte
ordering for the transport used.
Property 7: MTU correlation with CoAP PDU size.
Section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap] discusses the avoidance of IP
fragmentation by ensuring CoAP message fit into a single UDP
datagram. End-points on constrained networks using 6LoWPAN may use
blockwise transfers to accommodate even smaller packet sizes to avoid
fragmentation. The MTU sizes for Bluetooth Low Energy as well as
Classic Bluetooth are provided in Section 2.4 of [I-D.ietf-6lo-btle].
Transport MTU correlation with CoAP messages helps ensure minimal to
no fragmentation at the transport layer. On the other hand, allowing
a CoAP message to be delivered using a delay-tolerant transport
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
service such as the Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] would imply that the
CoAP message may be fragmented (or reconstituted) along various nodes
in the DTN as various sized bundles and bundle fragments.
Property 8: Framing
When using CoAP over a streaming transport protocol such as TCP, as
opposed to datagram based protocols, care must be observed in
preserving message boundaries. Commonly applied techniques at the
transport level include the use of delimiting characters for this
purpose as well as message framing and length prefixing.
Property 9: Transport latency.
A confirmable CoAP request would be retransmitted by a CoAP end-point
if a response is not obtained within a certain time. A CoAP end-
point registering to a Resource Directory uses a POST message that
could include a lifetime value. A sleepy end-point similarly uses a
lifetime value to indicate the freshness of the data to a CoAP Mirror
Server. Care needs to be exercised to ensure the latency of the
transport being used to carry CoAP packets is small enough not to
interfere with these values for the proper operation of these
functionalities.
Property 10: Connection Management.
A CoAP endpoint using a connection-oriented transport should be
responsible for proper connection establishment prior to sending a
CoAP Request message. Both communicating endpoints may monitor the
connection health during the Data Transfer phase. Finally, once data
transfer is complete, at least one end point should perform
connection teardown gracefully.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
While we envisage no new security risks simply from the introduction
of support for alternative transports, end-applications and CoAP
implementations should take note if certain transports require
privacy trade-offs that may arise if identifiers such as MAC
addresses or phone numbers are made public in addition to FQDNs.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
8. Acknowledgements
Feedback, ideas and ongoing discussions with Klaus Hartke, Martin
Thomson, Mark Nottingham, Graham Klyne, Carsten Bormann, Markus
Becker and Golnaz Karbaschi provided useful insights and ideas for
this work.
9. Informative References
[BTCorev4.1]
BLUETOOTH Special Interest Group, "BLUETOOTH Specification
Version 4.1", December 2013.
[I-D.becker-core-coap-sms-gprs]
Becker, M., Li, K., Poetsch, T., and K. Kuladinithi,
"Transport of CoAP over SMS", draft-becker-core-coap-sms-
gprs-04 (work in progress), August 2013.
[I-D.bormann-coap-misc]
Bormann, C. and K. Hartke, "Miscellaneous additions to
CoAP", draft-bormann-coap-misc-26 (work in progress),
December 2013.
[I-D.bormann-core-coap-tcp]
Bormann, C., "A TCP transport for CoAP", draft-bormann-
core-coap-tcp-00 (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-btle]
Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets
over BLUETOOTH Low Energy", draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00 (work
in progress), November 2013.
[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.
[I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm]
Rahman, A. and E. Dijk, "Group Communication for CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-18 (work in progress), December
2013.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP", draft-ietf-
core-observe-11 (work in progress), October 2013.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
[I-D.ietf-lwig-terminology]
Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained Node Networks", draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-06
(work in progress), December 2013.
[I-D.jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload]
Jimenez, J., Lopez-Vega, J., Maenpaa, J., and G.
Camarillo, "A Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)",
draft-jimenez-p2psip-coap-reload-03 (work in progress),
February 2013.
[I-D.savolainen-core-coap-websockets]
Savolainen, T., Hartke, K., and B. Silverajan, "CoAP over
WebSockets", draft-savolainen-core-coap-websockets-01
(work in progress), October 2013.
[OMALWM2M]
Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), "Lightweight Machine to
Machine Technical Specification", 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2609] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., and J. Kempf, "Service Templates
and Service: Schemes", RFC 2609, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC
4395, February 2006.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC5092] Melnikov, A. and C. Newman, "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 5092,
November 2007.
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoAP Alternative Transports February 2014
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
6455, December 2011.
[RFC6568] Kim, E., Kaspar, D., and JP. Vasseur, "Design and
Application Spaces for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6568, April 2012.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
[WWWArchv1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases, "Architecture
of the World Wide Web, Volume One", December 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Bilhanan Silverajan
Tampere University of Technology
Korkeakoulunkatu 10
FI-33720 Tampere
Finland
Email: bilhanan.silverajan@tut.fi
Teemu Savolainen
Nokia
Hermiankatu 12 D
FI-33720 Tampere
Finland
Email: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
Silverajan & Savolainen Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]