CoAP Protocol Negotiation
draft-silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized 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: January 9, 2017                                        Ericsson
                                                            July 8, 2016

                       CoAP Protocol Negotiation
           draft-silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation-03

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.

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 January 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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 January 9, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          CoAP Protocol Negotiation              July 2016

   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
     2.3.  Interaction with Energy-constrained Servers . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Node Types based on Transport Availability  . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  New Link Attribute and Relation types . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Observing Transport Types and Resource Representations  . . .   8
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     A.1.  From -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     A.2.  From -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     A.3.  From -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] allows clients,
   origin servers and proxies, to exchange and manipulate resource
   representations using REST-based methods using 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
   resources can be retrieved.  This allows a client to understand and
   possibly subsitute a different transport protocol configuration for
   the same CoAP resources on the origin server, based on the
   preferences of the communicating peers.  Inevitably, if two CoAP
   endpoints reside in distinctly separate networks with orthogonal
Show full document text