Network Working Group                                           J. Arkko
Internet-Draft                                               A. Eriksson
Intended status: Informational                                A. Keranen
Expires: January 10, 2013                                       Ericsson
                                                            July 9, 2012

      Building Power-Efficient CoAP Devices for Cellular Networks


   This memo discusses the use of the Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) protocol in building sensors and other devices that employ
   cellular networks as a communications medium.  Building communicating
   devices that employ these networks is obviously well known, but this
   memo focuses specifically on techniques necessary to minimize power

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).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   ( 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

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Goals for Low-Power Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Link-Layer Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Discovery and Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Real-Time Reachable Devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Sleepy Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

1.  Introduction

   This memo discusses the use of the Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) protocol [I-D.ietf-core-coap] in building sensors and other
   devices that employ cellular networks as a communications medium.
   Building communicating devices that employ these networks is
   obviously well known, but this memo focuses specifically on
   techniques necessary to minimize power consumption.  CoAP has many
   advantages, including being simple to implement; a thousand lines for
   the entire software above IP layer is plenty for a CoAP-based sensor,
   for instance.  However, while many of these advantages are obvious
   and easily obtained, optimizing power consumption remains challenging
   and requires careful design [I-D.arkko-core-sleepy-sensors].

   The memo targets primarily 3GPP cellular networks in their 2G, 3G,
   and LTE variants and their future enhancements, including possible
   power efficiency improvements at the radio and link layers.  The
   exact standards or details of the link layer or radios are not
   relevant for our purposes, however.  To be more precise, the material
   in this memo is suitable for any large-scale, public network that
   employs point-to-point communications model and radio technology.

   Our focus is devices that need to be optimized for power usage, and
   on devices that employ CoAP.  As a general technology, CoAP is
   similar to HTTP.  It can be used in various ways and network entities
   may take on different roles.  This freedom allows the technology to
   be used in efficient and less efficient ways.  Some guidance is
   needed to understand what communication models over CoAP are
   recommended when low power usage is a critical goal.

   The recommendations in this memo should be taken as complementary to
   device hardware optimization, microelectronics improvements, and
   further evolution of the underlying link and radio layers.  Further
   gains in power efficiency can certainly be gained on several fronts;
   the approach that we take in this memo is to do what can be done at
   the IP, transport, and application layers to provide the best
   possible power efficiency.  Application implementors generally have
   to use the current generation microelectronics, currently available
   radio networks and standards, and so on.  This focus in our memo
   should by no means be taken as an indication that further evolution
   in these other areas is unnecessary.  Such evolution is useful, is
   ongoing, and is generally complementary to the techniques presented
   in this memo.  The evolution of underlying technologies may change
   what techniques described here are useful for a particular
   application, however.

   The rest of this memo is structured as follows.  Section 2 discusses
   the need and goals for low-power devices.  Section 3 outlines our

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   expectations for the low layer communications model.  Section 4
   describes the two scenarios that we address, and Section 5,
   Section 6, Section 7 and Section 8 give guidelines for use of CoAP in
   these scenarios.

2.  Goals for Low-Power Operation

   There are many situations where power usage optimization is
   unnecessary.  Optimization may not be necessary on devices that can
   run on power feed over wired communications media, such as in Power-
   over-Ethernet (PoE) solutions.  These devices may require a
   rudimentary level of power optimization techniques just to avoid keep
   overall energy costs and aggregate power feed sizes at a reasonable
   level, but more extreme techniques necessary for battery powered
   devices are not required.  The situation is similar with devices that
   can be easily be connected to mains power.  Other types of devices
   may get an occasional charge of power from energy harvesting
   techniques.  For instance, some environmental sensors can run on
   solar cells.  Typically, these devices still have to regulate their
   power usage in a strict manner, for instance to be able to use as
   small and inexpensive solar cells as possible.

   In battery operated devices the power usage is even more important.
   For instance, one of the authors employs over a hundred different
   sensor devices in his home network.  A majority of these devices are
   wired and run on PoE, but in most environments this would be
   impractical because the necessary wires do not exist.  The future is
   in wireless solutions that can cover buildings and other environments
   without assuming a pre-existing wired infrastructure.  In addition,
   in many cases it is impractical to provide a mains power source.
   Often there are no power sockets easily available in the locations
   that the devices need to be in, and even if there were, setting up
   the wires and power adapters would be more complicated than
   installing a standalone device without any wires.

   Yet, with a large number of devices the battery lifetimes become
   critical.  Cost and practical limits dictate that devices can be
   largely just bought and left on their own.  For instance, with
   hundred devices, even a ten-year battery lifetime results in a
   monthly battery change for one device within the network.  This may
   be impractical in many environments.  In addition, some devices may
   be physically difficult to reach for a battery change.  Or, a large
   group of devices -- such as utility meters or environmental sensors
   -- cannot be economically serviced too often, even if in theory the
   batteries could be changed.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

                              SENSOR COMMUNICATION INTERVAL
   POWER SOURCE |      Seconds    | Minutes or Hours | Days and longer |
 |              |                 |                  |                 |
 |   Battery    |    Low-power    |   Low-power or   |   Always-off    |
 |              |                 |    Always-off    |                 |
 |              |                 |                  |                 |
 |  Harvesting  |    Low-power    |   Low-power or   |   Always-off    |
 |              |                 |    Always-off    |                 |
 |              |                 |                  |                 |
 |    Mains     |    Always-on    |    Always-on     |   Always-on     |
 |              |                 |                  |                 |

  Figure 1: Power usage strategies for different classes of applications

   Many of these situations lead to a requirement for minimizing power
   usage and/or maximing battery lifetimes.  A summary of the different
   situations for sensor-type devices is shown in Figure 1 above.
   Unfortunately, much of our current technology has been built with
   different objectives in mind.  Networked devices that are "always
   on", gadgets that require humans to recharge it every couple of days,
   and protocols that have been optimized to maximize throughput rather
   than conserve resources.

   Long battery lifetimes are required for many applications, however.
   In some cases these lifetimes should be in the order of years or even
   a decade or longer.  Some communication devices already reach multi-
   year lifetimes, and continuous improvement in low-power electronics
   and advances in radio technology keep pushing these lifetimes longer.
   However, it is perhaps fair to say that battery lifetimes are
   generally too short at present time.

   The general strategies for power usage from Figure 1 can be described
   as follows:


      Under this strategy, there is no reason for extreme measures for
      power saving.  The device can stay on in the usual manner all the
      time.  It may be useful to employ a power-friendly hardware or
      limit the number of wireless transmissions, CPU speeds, and other
      aspects for general power saving and cooling needs, but the device
      can be in the network all the time.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012


      Under this strategy, the device sleeps such long periods at a time
      that once it wakes up, it makes sense for it to not pretend that
      it is connected to the network during those times.  These devices
      re-attach to the network as they are woken up.  The main
      optimization goal is to minimize the effort during such re-
      attachment process and any resulting application communications.

      If the device sleeps for long periods of time, the relative
      increase in energy expediture during reattachment for infrequent
      communication may be acceptable.


      These devices need to operate on very small amount of power, but
      still be able to communicate in a relatively frequent basis.  This
      implies that extremely low power solutions needs to be used for
      the hardware, chosen link layer mechanisms, and so on.  Typically,
      given the small amount of time between transmissions, despite
      their sleep state these devices retain some form of network
      attachment to the network.  Techniques used for minimizing power
      usage for the network communications include minimizing any work
      from re-establishing communications after waking up, tuning the
      communications frequency, and paging frequency and other
      parameters appropriately.

   Power usage can not be evaluated solely based on lower layer
   communications.  The entire system, including upper layer protocols
   and applications is responsible for the power consumption as a whole.
   The lower communication layers have already adopted many techniques
   that can be used to reduce power usage, such as scheduling device
   wake-up times.  Further reductions will likely need some co-operation
   from the upper layers so that unnecessary communications, denial-of-
   service attacks on power consumptions, and other power drains are

   Of course, application requirements ultimately determine what kinds
   of communications are necessary.  For instance, some applications
   require more data to be sent than others.  The purpose of the
   guidelines in this memo is not to prefer one or the other
   application, but to provide guidance on how to minimize the amount of
   communications overhead that is not directly required by the
   application.  While such optimization is generally useful, it is
   relatively speaking most noticeable in applications that transfer
   only a small amount of data, or operate only infrequently.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

3.  Link-Layer Assumptions

   We assume that the underlying communications network can be any
   large-scale, public network that employs point-to-point
   communications model and radio technology. 2G, 3G, and LTE networks
   are examples of such networks, but not the only possible networks
   with these characteristics.

   In the following we look at some of these characteristics and their
   implications.  Note that in most cases these characteristics are not
   properties of the specific networks but rather inherent in the
   concept of public networks.

   Public networks

      Using a public network service implies that applications can be
      deployed without having to build a network to go with them.  For
      economical reasons, only the largest users (such as utility
      companies) could afford to build their own network, and even they
      would not be able to provide a world-wide coverage.  This means
      that applications where coverage is important can be built.  For
      instance, most transport sector applications require national or
      even world-wide coverage to work.

      But there are other implications, as well.  By definition, the
      network is not tailored for this application and with some
      exceptions, the traffic passes through the Internet.  One
      implication of this is that there are generally no application-
      specific network configurations or discovery support.  For
      instance, the public network helps devices to get on the Internet,
      set up default routers, configure DNS servers, and so on, but does
      nothing for configuring possible higher-layer functions, such as
      servers the device might need to contact to perform its
      application functions.

      Public networks often provide web proxies, and these can in some
      cases make a significant improvement for delays and cost of
      communication over the wireless link.  For instance, collecting
      content from a large number of servers used to render a web page
      and resolving their DNS names in a proxy instead of the user's
      device may cut down on the general chattiness of the
      communications, therefore reducing overall delay in completing the
      entire transaction.  However, as of today such proxies are
      provided only for HTTP communications, not for CoAP.

      Similarly, given the lack of available IPv4 addresses, the chances
      are that many devices are behind a network address translation
      (NAT) device.  This means that they are not easily reachable as

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

      servers.  Alternatively, the devices may be directly on the global
      Internet (either on IPv4 or IPv6) and easily reachable as servers.
      Unfortunately, this may mean that they also receive unwanted
      traffic, which may have implications for both power consumption
      and service costs.

   Point-to-point link model

      This is a common link model in cellular networks.  One implication
      of this model is that there will be no other nodes on the same
      link, except maybe for the service provider's router.  As a
      result, multicast discovery can not be reasonably used for any
      local discovery purposes.  While the configuration of the service
      provider's router for specific users is theoretically possible, in
      practice this is difficult to achieve, at least for any small user
      that can not afford a network-wide contract for a private APN.
      The public network access service has little per-user tailoring.

   Radio technology

      The use of radio technology means that power is needed to operate
      the radios.  Transmission generally requires more power than
      reception.  However, radio protocols have generally been designed
      so that a device checks periodically whether it has messages.  In
      a situation where messages arrive seldomly or not at all, this
      checking consumes energy.  Research has shown that these periodic
      checks (such as LTE paging message reception) are often a far
      bigger contributor to energy consumption than message

      Note that for situations where there are several applications on
      the same device wishing to communicate with the Internet in some
      manner, bundling those applications together at the same time can
      be very useful.  Some guidance for these techniques in the
      smartphone context can be found in [Android-Bundle].

   Naturally, each device has a freedom to decide when it sends
   messages.  In addition, we assume that there is some way for the
   devices to control when or how often it wants to receive messages.
   Specific methods for doing this depend on the specific network being
   used and also tend to change as improvements in the design of these
   networks are incorporated.  The reception control methods generally
   come in two variants, fine grained mechanisms that deal with how
   often the device needs to wake-up for paging messages, and more crude
   mechanisms where the device simply disconnects from the network for a
   period of time.  There are associated costs and benefits to each
   method, but those are not relevant for this memo, as long as some
   control method exists.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

4.  Scenarios

   Not all applications or situations are equal.  They may require
   different solutions or communication models.  This memo focuses on
   two common scenarios:

   Real-Time Reachable Devices

      This scenario involves all communication that requires real-time
      or near real-time communications with a device.  That is, a
      network entity must be able to reach the device with a small time
      lag at any time, and no pre-agreed wake-up schedule can be
      arranged.  By "real-time" we mean any reasonable end-to-end
      communications latency, be it measured in millieconds or seconds.
      However, unpredictable sleep states are not expected.

      Examples of devices in this category include sensors that must be
      measurable from a remote source at any instant in time, such as
      process automation sensors and actuators that require immediate
      action, such as lightbulbs or door locks.

   Sleepy Devices

      This scenario involves freedom to choose when device communicates.
      The device is often expected to be able to be in a sleep state for
      much of its time.  The device itself can choose when it
      communicates, or it lets the network assist in this task.

      Examples of devices in this category include sensors that track
      slowly changing values, such as temperature sensors and actuators
      that control a relatively slow process, such as heating systems.

      Note that there may be hard real-time requirements, but they are
      expressed in terms of how fast the device can communicate, not in
      terms of how fast it can respond to a network stimuli.  For
      instance, a fire detector can be classified as a sleepy device as
      long as it can internally quickly wake up on detecting fire and
      initiate the necessary communications without delay.

5.  Discovery and Registration

   In both scenarios the device will be attached to a public network.
   Without special arrangements, the device will also get a dynamically
   assigned IP address or an IPv6 prefix.  At least one but typically
   several router hops separate the device from its communicating peers
   such as application servers.  As a result, the address or even the
   existence of the device is typically not immediately obvious to the

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   other nodes participating in the application.  As discussed earlier,
   multicast discovery has limited value in public networks; network
   nodes cannot practically discover individual devices in a large
   public network.  And the devices can not discover who they need to
   talk, as the public network offers just basic Internet connectivity.

   Our recommendation is to initiate a discovery and registration
   process.  This allows each device to inform its peers that it has
   connected to the network and that it is reachable at a given IP

   The registration part is easy; a resource directory or mirror proxy
   can be used.  The device should perform the necessary registration
   with these devices, for instance, as specified in
   [I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory] and
   [I-D.vial-core-mirror-proxy].  In order to do this registration, the
   device needs to know its CORE Link Format description, as specified
   in [I-D.ietf-core-link-format].  In essence, the registration process
   involves performing a GET on .well-known/core/?rt=core-rd at the
   address of the resource directory (or rt=core-mp for mirror proxies),
   and then doing a POST on the path of the discovered resource.

   However, current CoAP specifications provide limited support for
   discovering the resource directory or mirror proxy.  Local multicast
   discovery only works in LAN-type networks, but not in these public
   cellular networks.  Our recommended alternate methods for discovery
   are the following:

   Manual Configuration

      The DNS name of the resource directory or mirror proxy is manually
      configured.  This approach is suitable in situations where the
      owner of the devices has the resources and capabilities to do the
      configuration.  For instance, a utility company can typically
      program its metering devices to point to the company servers.

   Manufacturer Server

      The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the
      software by the manufacturer, and the directory or proxy is
      actually run by the manufacturer.  This approach is suitable in
      many consumer usage scenarios, where it would be unreasonable to
      assume that the consumer runs any specific network services.  The
      manufacturer's web interface and the directory/proxy servers can
      co-operate to provide the desired functionality to the end user.
      For instance, the end user can register a device identity in the
      manufacturer's web interface and ask specific actions to be taken
      when the device does something.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   Delegating Manufacturer Server

      The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the
      software by the manufacturer, but this directory or proxy merely
      redirects the request to a directory or proxy run by the whoever
      bought the device.  This approach is suitable in many enterprise
      environments, as it allows the enterprise to be in charge of
      actual data collection and device registries; only the initial
      bootstrap goes through the manufacturer.  In many cases there are
      even legal requirements (such as EU privacy laws) that prevent
      providing unnecessary information to third parties.

   Common Global Resolution Infrastructure

      The delegating manufacturer server model could be generalized into
      a reverse-DNS -like discovery infrastructure that could answer the
      question "this is device with identity ID, where is my home
      registration server?".  However, at present no such resolution
      system exists.  (Note: The EPCGlobal system for RFID resolution is
      reminiscent of this approach.)

6.  Data Formats

   A variety of data formats exist for passing around data.  These data
   formats include XML, JSON, EXI, and text formats.  Message lengths
   can have a significant effect on the amount of energy required for
   the communications, and such it is highly desirable to keep message
   lengths minimal.  At the same time, extreme optimization can affect
   flexibility and ease of programming.  The authors recommend
   [I-D.jennings-senml] as a compact, yet easily processed and
   extendable textual format.

7.  Real-Time Reachable Devices

   These devices are often best modeled as CoAP servers.  The device
   will have limited control on when it receives messages, and it will
   have to listen actively for messages, up to the limits of the
   underlying link layer.  If the device acts also in client role in
   some phase of its operation, it can control how many transmissions it
   makes on its own behalf.

   The packet reception checks should be tailored according to the
   requirements of the application.  If sub-second response time is not
   needed, a slightly more infrequent checking process may save some

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   For sensor-type devices, the CoAP OBSERVE extension
   [I-D.ietf-core-observe] may be supported.  This allows the sensor to
   track changes to the sensed value, and make an immediate observation
   response upon a change.  This may reduce the amount of polling needed
   to be done by the client.  Unfortunately, it does not reduce the time
   that the device needs to be listening for requests.  Subscription
   requests from other clients than the currently registered one may
   come at any time, the current client may change its request, and the
   device still needs to respond to normal queries as a server.  As a
   result, the sensor can not rely having to communicate only on its own
   choice of observation interval.

   In order to act as a server, the device needs to be placed in a
   public IPv4 address, be reachable over IPv6, or hosted in a private
   network.  If the the device is hosted on a private network, then all
   other nodes need to access this device also need to reside in the
   same private network.  There are multiple ways to provide private
   networks over public cellular networks.  One approach is to dedicate
   a special Access Point Name or APN for the private network.
   Corporate access via cellular networks has often been arranged in
   this manner, for instance.  Another approach is to use Virtual
   Private Networking (VPN) technology, for instance IPsec-based VPNs.

   Power consumption from unwanted traffic is problematic in these
   devices, unless placed in a private network or protected by a
   operator-provided firewall service.  Devices on an IPv6 network will
   have some protection through the nature of the 2^64 address
   allocation for a single terminal in a 3GPP cellular network; the
   attackers will be unable to guess the full IP address of the device.
   However, this protects only the device from processing a packet, but
   since the network will still deliver the packet to any of the
   addresses within the assigned 64-bit prefix, packet reception costs
   are still incurred.

   Note that the the VPN approach can not prevent unwanted traffic
   received at the tunnel endpoint address, and may require keep-alive
   traffic.  Special APNs can solve this issue, but require explicit
   arrangement with the service provider.

8.  Sleepy Devices

   These devices are best modeled as devices that can delegate queries
   to some other node.  For instance, as mirror proxy clients
   [I-D.vial-core-mirror-proxy].  When the device initializes itself, it
   makes a registration of itself in a mirror proxy as described above
   in Section 5 and then continues to send periodic updates of sensor

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   As a result, the device acts only as a client, not a server, and can
   shut down all communication channels while it is during its sleeping
   period.  The length of the sleeping period depends on power and
   application requirements.  Some environmental sensors might use a day
   or a week as the period, while other devices may use a smaller values
   ranging from minutes to hours.

   Other approaches for delegation include CoAP-options described in
   [I-D.fossati-core-publish-monitor-options].  In this memo we use
   mirror proxies as an example, because of their ability to work with
   both HTTP and CoAP implementations; but the concepts are similar and
   the IETF work is still in progress so the final protocol details are
   yet to be decided.

   The ability to shut down communications and act as only a client has
   four impacts:

   o  Radio transmission and reception can be turned off during the
      sleeping period, reducing power consumption significantly.

   o  However, some power and time is consumed by having to re-attach to
      the network after the end of a sleep period.

   o  The window of opportunity for unwanted traffic to arrive is much
      smaller, as the device is listening for traffic only part of the
      time.  Note that networks may cache packets for some time though.
      On the other hand, stateful firewalls can effectively remove much
      of unwanted traffic for client type devices.

   o  The device may exist behind a NAT or a firewall without being
      impacted.  Note that "Simple Security" basic IPv6 firewall
      capability [RFC6092] blocks inbound UDP traffic by default, so
      just moving to IPv6 is not direct solution to this problem.

   For sleepy devices that represent actuators, it is also possible to
   use the mirror proxy model.  The device can make periodic polls to
   the proxy to determine if a variable has changed.

8.1.  Implementation Considerations

   There are several challenges in implementing sleepy devices.  They
   need hardware that can be put to an appropriate sleep mode but yet
   awakened when it is time to do something again.  This is not always
   easy in all hardware platforms.  It is important to be able to shut
   down as much of the hardware as possible, preferably down to
   everything else except a clock circuit.  The platform also needs to
   support re-awakening at suitable time scales, as otherwise the device

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

   needs to be powered up too frequently.

   Most commercial cellular modem platforms do not allow applications to
   suspend the state of the communications stack.  Hence, after a power-
   off period they need to re-establish communications, which takes some
   amount of time and extra energy.

   Implementations should have a coordinated understanding of the state
   and sleeping schedule.  For instance, it makes no sense to keep a CPU
   powered up, waiting for a message when the lower layer has been told
   that the next possible paging opportunity is some time away.

   The cellular networks have a number of adjustable configuration
   parameters, such as the maximum used paging interval.  Proper setting
   of these values has an impact on the power consumption of the device,
   but with the current business practices, such settings are rarely
   negotiated when the user's subscription is provisioned.

9.  Security Considerations

   There are no particular security aspects with what has been discussed
   in this memo, except for the ability to delegate queries for a
   resource to another node.  Depending on how this is done, there are
   obvious security issues which have largely NOT yet been addressed in
   the relevant Internet Drafts [I-D.vial-core-mirror-proxy]
   [I-D.fossati-core-publish-monitor-options].  However, we point out
   that in general, security issues in delegation can be solved either
   through reliance on your local network support nodes (which may be
   quite reasonable in many environments) or explict end-to-end
   security.  Explicit end-to-end security through nodes that are awake
   at different times means in practice end-to-end data object security.
   We have implemented one such mechanism for sleepy nodes as described
   in [I-D.aks-crypto-sensors].

   The security considerations relating to CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] and
   the relevant link layers should apply.  Note that cellular networks
   universally employ per-device authentication, integrity protection,
   and for most of the world, encryption of all their communications.
   Additional protection of transport sessions is possible through
   mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-core-coap] or data objects.

10.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA impacts in this memo.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
              "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
              draft-ietf-core-coap-06 (work in progress), May 2011.

              Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP",
              draft-ietf-core-observe-05 (work in progress), March 2012.

              Vial, M., "CoRE Mirror Proxy",
              draft-vial-core-mirror-proxy-00 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

              Shelby, Z. and S. Krco, "CoRE Resource Directory",
              draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-00 (work in
              progress), June 2011.

              Shelby, Z., "CoRE Link Format",
              draft-ietf-core-link-format-11 (work in progress),
              January 2012.

              Jennings, C., "Media Type for Sensor Markup Language
              (SENML)", draft-jennings-senml-05 (work in progress),
              March 2011.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
              Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
              Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              January 2011.

              Arkko, J., Rissanen, H., Loreto, S., Turanyi, Z., and O.
              Novo, "Implementing Tiny COAP Sensors",
              draft-arkko-core-sleepy-sensors-01 (work in progress),
              July 2011.

              Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "CoAP Security Architecture",

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

              draft-arkko-core-security-arch-00 (work in progress),
              July 2011.

              Sethi, M., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and H. Rissanen,
              "Practical Considerations and Implementation Experiences
              in Securing Smart Object Networks",
              draft-aks-crypto-sensors-02 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

              Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-01
              (work in progress), March 2012.

              Castellani, A. and S. Loreto, "CoAP Alive Message",
              draft-castellani-core-alive-00 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

              Fossati, T., Giacomin, P., and S. Loreto, "Publish and
              Monitor Options for CoAP",
              draft-fossati-core-publish-monitor-options-01 (work in
              progress), March 2012.

              Developer.Android.Com, "Optimizing Downloads for Efficient
              Network Access", Android  developer note http://
              efficient-network-access.html, <http://

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Zach Shelby, Jan Holler, Salvatore
   Loreto, Matthew Vial, Thomas Fossati, Mohit Sethi, Jan Melen, Joachim
   Sachs, Heidi-Maria Rissanen, Sebastien Pierrel, Kumar Balachandran,
   Muhammad Waqas Mir, Cullen Jennings, Markus Isomaki, Hannes
   Tschofenig, and Anna Larmo for interesting discussions in this
   problem space.

Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            Cellular CoAP devices                July 2012

Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   Jorvas  02420


   Anders Eriksson
   Stockholm  164 83


   Ari Keranen
   Jorvas  02420


Arkko, et al.           Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 17]