CoAP Communication with Alternative Transports
draft-silverajan-core-coap-alternative-transports-09
| 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 | 2016-06-23 (Latest revision 2015-12-21) | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 allowing CoAP to operate with other transports and protocols. Examples are M2M communication in cellular networks using SMS, more suitable transport protocols for firewall/NAT traversal, end-to-end reliability and security such as TCP and TLS, or employing proxying and tunneling gateway techniques such as the WebSocket protocol. 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.)