CoAP Protocol Negotiation
draft-silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation-05

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-05-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
CoRE Working Group                                         B. Silverajan
Internet-Draft                                                       TUT
Intended status: Informational                                   M. Ocak
Expires: November 5, 2017                                       Ericsson
                                                             May 4, 2017

                       CoAP Protocol Negotiation
           draft-silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation-05

Abstract

   CoAP has been standardised as an application-level REST-based
   protocol.  When multiple transport protocols exist for exchanging
   CoAP resource representations, this document introduces a way forward
   for CoAP endpoints as well as intermediaries to agree upon alternate
   transport and protocol configurations as well as URIs for CoAP
   messaging, using the CoRE Resource Directory.

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 November 5, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Silverajan & Ocak       Expires November 5, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          CoAP Protocol Negotiation               May 2017

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Overcoming Middlebox Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Better resource caching and serving in proxies  . . . . .   5
   3.  Node Types based on Transport Availability  . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  New Resource Directory Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  The 'at' RD parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  The 'tt' RD parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.1.  From -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.  From -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.3.  From -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.4.  From -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.5.  From -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] allows clients,
   origin servers and proxies, to exchange and manipulate resource
   representations using REST-based methods over UDP or DTLS.  CoAP
   messaging is however being extended to use other alternative
   underlying transports.  These include reliable transports such as
   TCP, WebSockets and TLS.  In addition, the use of SMS as a CoAP
   transport remains a possibility for simple communication in cellular
   networks.

   When CoAP-based endpoints and proxies possess the ability to perform
   CoAP messaging over multiple transports, significant benefits can be
   obtained if communicating client endpoints can discover that multiple
   transport bindings may exist on an origin server over which CoAP
Show full document text