CoAP Communication with Alternative Transports
draft-silverajan-core-coap-alternative-transports-07
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bill Silverajan , Teemu Savolainen | ||
| Last updated | 2015-06-20 (Latest revision 2014-12-17) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
CoAP has been 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 messages to end points over such alternative transports. It also provides a new URI format for representing CoAP resources over alternative transports.
Authors
Bill Silverajan
Teemu Savolainen
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)