%% You should probably cite rfc7967 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{tcs-coap-no-response-option-08,
    number =    {draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-08},
    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/08/},
    author =    {Abhijan Bhattacharyya and Soma Bandyopadhyay and Arpan Pal},
    title =     {{CoAP option for no server-response}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      2015,
    month =     jan,
    day =       21,
    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.},
}