%% You should probably cite rfc7967 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{tcs-coap-no-response-option-02,
    number =    {draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-02},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option/02/},
    author =    {Abhijan Bhattacharyya and Soma Bandyopadhyay and Arpan Pal},
    title =     {{CoAP option for no server-response}},
    pagetotal = 12,
    year =      2013,
    month =     sep,
    day =       28,
    abstract =  {There can be typical M2M scenarios where responses from the data sink to the data source against request/ notification from the source might be considered redundant. This kind of open-loop exchange (with no reverse path from the sink to the source) may be desired while updating resources or notifying about the updated status of a resource in constrained systems looking for maximized throughput with minimized resource consumption. CoAP already provides a non-confirmable (NON) mode of exchange where The receiving end-point does not respond with ACK. However, the receiving end-point responds the sender with a status code indicating "the result of the attempt to understand and satisfy the request". This draft introduces a header option: 'No-Resp' to suppress responses from the receiver and discusses exemplary use cases which motivated this proposition based on real experience. This option also provides granularity by allowing suppression of a particular class or a combination of classes of responses. This option is applicable for both request/ response as well as resource-observe mode and may be effective for both unicast and multicast scenarios.},
}