CoAP option for no server-response
draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-12

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-10-15
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: April 2016                                             T. Bose
                                         Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
                                                       October 15, 2015

                    CoAP option for no server-response
                   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-12

   Abstract

   There can be M2M scenarios where responses from server against
   requests from client might be considered redundant. This kind of
   open-loop exchange (with no response path from the server to the
   client) may be 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 message exchange
   where the server end-point does not respond with ACK. However,
   obeying the request/response semantics, 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'.
   Using this option the client explicitly tells the server to suppress
   responses against the particular request. This option also provides
   granular control to enable suppression of a particular class or a
   combination of response-classes. This option may be effective for
   both unicast and multicast requests. Present draft also discusses
   few exemplary applications which 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

Bhattacharyya, et al.   Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-12      October 2015

   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   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 April 15, 2016.

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. Potential benefits........................................3
      1.2. Terminology...............................................4
   2. Option Definition..............................................4
      2.1. Granular control over 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............................................8
         3.2.1. Using granular response suppression..................9
   4. Miscellaneous aspects..........................................9
      4.1. Re-using Tokens...........................................9
      4.2. Taking care of congestion................................10
      4.3. Handling No-Response option for a reverse proxy..........11
   5. Example.......................................................11
      5.1. Using No-Response with PUT...............................11
      5.2. Using No-Response with POST..............................12
         5.2.1. POST updating a fixed target resource...............12

Bhattacharyya, et al.   Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft   draft-tcs-coap-no-response-option-12      October 2015

         5.2.2. POST updating through query-string..................13
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................14
Show full document text