CoAP option for no server-response
draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-08

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-01-21
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-tcs-coap-no-response-option
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                                                   A. Bhattacharyya
Internet Draft                                         S. Bandyopadhyay
Intended status: Standards track                                 A. Pal
Expires: July 2015                       Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
                                                       January 21, 2015

                    CoAP option for no server-response
                   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-08

   Abstract

   There can be typical M2M scenarios where responses from server
   against request from client might be considered redundant. This kind
   of open-loop exchange (with no reverse path from the server to the
   client) may be typically desired to minimize resource consumption in
   constrained systems while simultaneously updating a bulk of
   resources or updating a resource with a very high frequency. CoAP
   already provides a non-confirmable (NON) mode of exchange where the
   server end-point does not respond with ACK. However, the server end-
   point responds back with a status code indicating "the result of the
   attempt to understand and satisfy the request".

   This draft introduces a header option for CoAP called 'No-Response'.
   The option explicitly tells the server to suppress responses about
   the state of the resource against the request from the client. This
   option also provides granular control by allowing suppression of a
   typical class or a combination of classes of responses. This option
   may be effective for both unicast and multicast requests. This draft
   discusses few exemplary applications which might benefit from this
   option.

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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

Bhattacharyya, et al.   Expires July 21, 2015                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-08      January 2015

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Granular suppression of responses.........................3
      1.2. Potential benefits........................................3
      1.3. Terminology...............................................4
   2. Option Definition..............................................4
      2.1. Granularity in response suppression.......................5
   3. Exemplary application scenarios................................7
      3.1. Frequent update of geo-location from vehicles to backend..7
      3.2. Multicasting actuation command from a handheld device to a
      group of appliances............................................7
         3.2.1. Using granular response suppression..................8
   4. Miscellaneous aspects..........................................8
      4.1. Re-use interval for message IDs...........................8
      4.2. Re-using Tokens...........................................8
      4.3. Taking care of congestion.................................9
      4.4. Duality with the 'Observe' option.........................9
   5. Example.......................................................10
      5.1. Request/response Scenario................................10
         5.1.1. Using No-Response with PUT..........................10
         5.1.2. Using No-Response with POST.........................11
            5.1.2.1. POST updating a target resource................11

Bhattacharyya, et al.   Expires July 21, 2015                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-08      January 2015
Show full document text