%% You should probably cite rfc7967 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{tcs-coap-no-response-option-06,
    number =    {draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-06},
    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/06/},
    author =    {Abhijan Bhattacharyya and Soma Bandyopadhyay and Arpan Pal},
    title =     {{CoAP option for no server-response}},
    pagetotal = 18,
    year =      2014,
    month =     jun,
    day =       20,
    abstract =  {There can be typical M2M scenarios where responses from the data sink to the data source against request 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 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-Response' 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 typical class or a combination of classes of responses. This option may be effective for both unicast and multicast scenarios.},
}