CoRE Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft K. Hartke
Intended status: Informational Universitaet Bremen TZI
Expires: January 1, 2011 June 30, 2010
Miscellaneous additions to CoAP
draft-bormann-coap-misc-02
Abstract
This short I-D makes a number of partially interrelated proposals how
to solve certain problems in the CoRE WG's main protocol, CoAP.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 1, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A Compact Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Representing Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Pseudo-Floating Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. A Duration Type for CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. URI encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. An efficient stateless URI encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Stateful URI compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Block-wise transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. The Block Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Option Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. A More Efficient Option Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Critical Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Payload-Length Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. Problems with specific options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. Amplification Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
1. Introduction
The CoRE WG is tasked with standardizing an Application Protocol for
Constrained Networks/Nodes, CoAP. This protocol is intended to
provide RESTful [REST] services not unlike HTTP [RFC2616], while
reducing the complexity of implementation as well as the size of
packets exchanged in order to make these services useful in a highly
constrained network of themselves highly constrained nodes.
This objective requires restraint in a number of sometimes
conflicting ways:
o reducing implementation complexity in order to minimize code size,
o reducing message sizes in order to minimize the number of
fragments needed for each message (in turn to maximize the
probability of delivery of the message), the amount of
transmission power needed and the loading of the limited-bandwidth
channel,
o reducing requirements on the environment such as stable storage,
good sources of randomness or user interaction capabilities.
This draft attempts to address a number of problems not yet
adequately solved in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. The solutions proposed to
these problems are somewhat interrelated and are therefore presented
in one draft.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
and indicate requirement levels for compliant CoAP implementations.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
2. A Compact Accept Option
A resource may be available in a number of representations. Without
some information from the client, a server has no easy way to decide
which of these would be best served. HTTP has an Accept: request
header that a client can use to indicate the media types supported,
allowing the server to decide. This header is somewhat unpopular as,
for a web browser, there are too many media types to choose from, so
-- even with wildcards -- there is no meaningful information to put
there. (This has changed a bit for AJAX calls, which may indeed have
a specific media type preference.) It is unlikely that machine-to-
machine communication would have the same problem.
A similar function to the HTTP Accept: header could be added to CoAP
as an option in a much simpler way. The CoAP Accept option would
simple carry a value that is a sequence of octets, each of which is
an acceptable media type for the client, in the order of preference
(see Figure 1). If no Accept option is given, the client does not
express a preference.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mediatype |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mediatype1 | mediatype2 | etc.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Accept option value: A sequence of media types
Accept also has to be given an option type code, e.g. 7, in Table 2
of [I-D.ietf-core-coap].
The other addition that would be required is an error code that
mirrors HTTP's "415 Unsupported Media Type". This is indeed already
listed as CoAP Code 35 in Table 3 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap].
Proposal: Add an Accept Option.
Benefits: A Server does not need to specify one URI each for every
possible media type that it wants to serve a resource under.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
Open Issues: For coap-00, this would have needed a way to handle
two-byte media types (easiest if these can be made self-
describing, at the cost of about 3 bits in the sub-type field;
Figure 2).
An self-describing representation for long mediatypes could look like
this:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| top | sub | (1-byte: unchanged)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 000 | top | sub | (2-byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: A self-describing media type representation
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
3. Representing Durations
Various message types used in CoAP need the representation of
*durations*, i.e. of the length of a timespan. In SI units, these
are measured in seconds. Where CPU power and memory is abundant, a
duration can almost always be adequately represented by a non-
negative floating-point number representing that number of seconds.
Historically, many APIs have also used an integer representation,
which limits both the resolution (e.g., if the integer represents the
duration in seconds) and often the range (integer machine types have
range limits that may become relevant). UNIX's "time_t" (which is
used for both absolute time and durations) originally was a signed
32-bit value of seconds, but was later complemented by an additional
integer to add microsecond ("struct timeval") and then later
nanosecond ("struct timespec") resolution.
Three decisions need to be made for each application of the concept
of duration:
o the *resolution*. What rounding error is acceptable?
o the *range*. What is the maximum duration that needs to be
represented?
o the *number of bits* that can be expended.
Obviously, these decisions are interrelated. Typically, a large
range needs a large number of bits, unless resolution is traded. For
most applications, the actual requirement for resolution are limited
for longer durations, but can be more acute for shorter durations.
3.1. Pseudo-Floating Point
Constrained systems typically avoid the use of floating-point (FP)
values, as
o simple CPUs often don't have support for floating-point datatypes
o software floating-point libraries are expensive in code size and
slow.
In addition, floating-point datatypes used to be a significant
element of market differentiation in CPU design; it has taken the
industry a long time to agree on a standard floating point
representation.
These issues have led to protocols that try to constrain themselves
to integer representation even where the ability of a floating point
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
representation to trade range for resolution would be beneficial.
The idea of introducing _pseudo-FP_ is to obtain the increased range
provided by embedding an exponent, without necessarily getting stuck
with hardware datatypes or inefficient software floating-point
libraries.
For the purposes of this draft, we define an (n,e)-pseudo-FP as a
fixed-length value of n bits, e of which may be used for an exponent.
Figure 3 illustrates an (8,4)-pseudo-FP value.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0... value |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1... mantissa | exponent |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 3: An (8,4) pseudo-FP representation
If the high bit is clear, the entire n-bit value (including the high
bit) is the decoded value. If the high bit is set, the mantissa
(including the high bit, but with the exponent field cleared out) is
shifted left by the exponent to yield the decoded value.
The (n,e)-pseudo-FP format can be decoded with a single line of code
(plus a couple of constant definition), as demonstrated in Figure 4.
#define N 8
#define E 4
#define HIBIT (1 << (N - 1))
#define EMASK ((1 << E) - 1)
#define MMASK ((1 << N) - 1 - EMASK)
#define DECODE_8_4(r) (r < HIBIT ? r : (r & MMASK) << (r & EMASK))
Figure 4: Decoding an (8,4) pseudo-FP value
Only non-negative numbers can be represented by this format. It is
designed to provide full integer resolution for values from 0 to
2^(n-1)-1, i.e., 0 to 127 in the (8,4) case, and a mantissa of n-e
bits from 2^(n-1) to (2^n-2^e)*2^(2^e-1), i.e., 128 to 7864320 in the
(8,4) case. By choosing e carefully, resolution can be traded
against range.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
Note that a pseudo-FP encoder needs to consider rounding; different
applications of durations may favor rounding up or rounding down the
value encoded in the message. This requires a little more than a
single line of code (which is left as an exercise to the reader, as
the most efficient expression depends on hardware details).
3.2. A Duration Type for CoAP
CoAP needs durations in a number of places. In [I-D.ietf-core-coap],
durations occur in the option "Subscription-lifetime" as well as in
the option "Max-age". (Note that the option "Date" is not a
duration, but a point in time.) Other durations of this kind may be
added later.
Most durations relevant to CoAP are best expressed with a minimum
resolution of one second. More detailed resolutions are unlikely to
provide much benefit.
The range of lifetimes and caching ages are probably best kept below
the order of magnitude of months. An (8,4)-pseudo-FP has the maximum
value of 7864320, which is about 91 days; this appears to be adequate
for a subscription lifetime and probably even for a maximum cache
age. (If a larger range for the latter is indeed desired, an (8,5)-
pseudo-FP could be used; this would last 15 milleniums, at the cost
of having only 3 bits of accuracy for values larger than 127
seconds.)
Proposal: A single duration type is used throughout CoAP, based on
an (8,4)-pseudo-FP giving a duration in seconds.
Benefits: Implementations can use a single piece of code for
managing all CoAP-related durations.
In addition, length information never needs to be managed for
durations that are embedded in other data structures: All
durations are expressed by a single byte.
Open Issues: It might be worthwhile to reserve one duration value,
e.g. 0xFF, for an indefinite duration.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
4. URI encoding
In HTTP-based systems, URIs can reach significant lengths. While
CoAP-based systems may be able to sidestep the most egregious
excesses (mostly by simply applying REST principles), a URI such as
/.well-known/resources
can use up one third of the available payload in a CoAP message
transported in a single 6LoWPAN packet. Is there a way to encode
these URIs in a more efficient way?
Several proposals have been made on the CoRE mailing list, e.g.
applying the principle of base64-encoding [RFC4648] in reverse and
using only 6 bits per character. However, due to rounding errors and
occasional characters that are not in the 64-character subset chosen
to be efficiently encodable, the actual gains are limited.
Similarly, using 7 bits per character (assuming URIs contain only
ASCII characters) only gives a best-case gain of 12.5 %, and that
only in the case the URI is a multiple of 8 characters long. On the
other hand, the complexity (and danger of subtle interoperability
problems) is not entirely trivial.
We will proceed by first proposing an URI encoding that is slightly
more efficient than the abovementioned ones, then rejecting even that
for its unconvincing cost-benefit ratio, and finally taking up
Henning Schulzrinne's proposal to add state.
4.1. An efficient stateless URI encoding
There is very little redundancy by repetition in a typical URI,
rendering popular compression methods such as LZ77 (as implemented in
in the widely used DEFLATE algorithm [RFC1951]) rather ineffective.
For the short, non-repetitive data structures that URIs tend to be,
efficient stateless compression is pretty much confined to Huffman
(or, for even more complexity, arithmetic) coding. The complexity
can be reduced significantly by moving to n-ary Huffman coding, i.e.,
optimizing not to the bit level, but to a larger level of
granularity. Informal experiments by the author show that a 16ary
Huffman coding is close to optimal for reasonable URI lengths. In
other words, basing the encoding on nibbles (4-bit half-bytes) is
both nearly optimal and relatively inexpensive to implement.
The actual letter frequencies that will occur in CoAP URIs are hard
to predict. As a stopgap, the author has analyzed an HTTP-based URI
corpus and found the following characters to occur with high
frequency:
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
%.aeinorst
In the encoding proposed, each of these ten highly-compressed
characters is represented by a single 4-bit nibble. As the %
character is used for hexadecimal encoding in URIs, two additional
nibbles are used to provide the numeric value of the two hexadecimal
numbers following the % character (the original URI will only be
properly reconstituted if these are upper-case as they should be
according to section 2.1 of the URI specification [RFC3986]; the
encoder can choose to send all three characters in dual-nibble format
if that matters). An encoder could also map non-ASCII characters to
this three-nibble form, even though they are not allowed in URIs.
This gives compatibility with the %-encoding required by [RFC3986].
All other characters are represented by both of their nibbles. The
resulting sequence of nibbles is reconstituted into a sequence of
bytes in most-significant-nibble-first order. Any unused nibble in
the last byte of an encoding is set to 0. (Upon decoding, this
padding can be readily distinguished from another % combination as
this would require another byte after the last byte.) The encoding
is summarized in Figure 5.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---+---+---+---+
| 1, 8-F | .aeinorst
+---+---+---+---+ 189ABCDEF
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2-7 | 0-F | other ASCII
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0 | 0-F | 0-F | %HH
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 5: A nibble-based URI encoding
An example encoding for "/.well-known/resources" (where the initial
slash is left out, as proposed for abs-path URIs) is given in
Figure 6. While the more than 28 % savings in this example may seem
just an accident, the HTTP-based corpus indeed shows an average
savings of about 21.8 %, i.e. the sum of the lengths of the encoded
version of all URIs in the corpus is about 78.2 % of the sum of the
length of all URIs. (The savings should be noticeably higher with a
more RESTful selection of URIs than was available for this
experiment.)
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
/ . w e l l - k n o w n / r e s o u r c e s
2e 77 65 6c 6c 2d 6b 6e 6f 77 6e 2f 72 65 73 6f 75 72 63 65 73
->
1 77 9 6c 6c 2d 6b b c 77 b 2f d 9 e c 75 d 63 9 e
= 17 79 6c 6c 2d 6b bc 77 b2 fd 9e c7 5d 63 9e
Figure 6: Nibble-based URI encoding: 21 -> 15 bytes
4.2. Stateful URI compression
Is the approximately 25 % average saving achievable with Huffman-
based URI compression schemes worth the complexity? Probably not,
because much higher average savings can be achieved by introducing
state.
Henning Schulzrinne has proposed for a server to be able to supply a
shortened URI once a resource has been requested using the full-
length URI. Let's call such a shortened referent a _Temporary
Resource Identifier_, _TeRI_ for short. This could be expressed by a
response option as shown in Figure 7.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| duration | TeRI...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Option for offering a TeRI in a response
The TeRI offer option indicates that the server promises to offer
this resources under the TeRI given for at least the time given as
the duration. Another TeRI offer can be made later to extend the
duration.
Once a TeRI for a URI is known (and still within its lifetime), the
client can supply a TeRI instead of a URI in its requests. The same
option format as an offer could be used to allow the client to
indicate how long it believes the TeRI will still be valid (so that
the server can decide when to update the lifetime duration). TeRIs
in requests could be distinguished from URIs e.g. by using a
different option number.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
Proposal: Add a TeRI option (e.g., number 2) that can be used in
CoAP requests and responses.
Add a way to indicate a TeRI and its duration in a link-value.
Do not add any form of stateless URI encoding.
Benefits: Much higher reduction of message size than any stateless
URI encoding could achieve.
As the use of TeRIs is entirely optional, minimal complexity nodes
can get by without implementing them.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
5. Block-wise transfers
Not all resource representations will fit into a single link layer
packet of a constrained network. Using fragmentation (either at the
adaptation layer or at the IP layer) to enable the transport of
larger representations is possible up to the maximum size of a UDP
datagram, but the fragmentation/reassembly process loads the lower
layers with conversation state that is better managed in the
application layer.
This section proposes options to enable _block-wise_ access to
resource representations. The overriding objective is to avoid
creating conversation state at the server for block-wise GET
requests. (It is impossible to fully avoid creating conversation
state for POST/PUT, if the creation/replacement of resources is to be
atomic; where that property is not needed, there is no need to create
server conversation state in this case, either.) Also,
implementation of these options is intended to be optional. (The
details of which parts of the behavior need to be mandatory to enable
that optionality still are TBD, see below.)
The size of the blocks should not be fixed by the protocol. On the
other hand, implementation should be as simple as possible. We
therefore propose a small range of power-of-two block sizes, from 2^4
(16) to 2^11 (2048) bytes. One of these eight values can be encoded
in three bits (0 for 2^4 to 7 for 2^11 bytes), the "szx" (size
exponent); the actual block size is then "1 << (szx + 4)".
5.1. The Block Option
When a representation is larger than can be comfortably transferred
in a single UDP datagram, the Block option can be used to indicate a
block-wise transfer. Block is a 1-, 2- or 3-byte integer, the four
least significant bits of which indicate the size and whether the
current block-wise transfer is the last block being transferred (M or
"more" bit). The value divided by sixteen is the number of the block
currently being transferred, starting from zero, i.e., the current
transfer is about the "size" bytes starting at "blocknr << (szx +
4)". The default value of the Block option is zero, indicating that
the current block is the first (block number 0) and only (M bit not
set) block of the transfer; however, there is no explicit size
implied by this default value.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|blocknr|M| szx |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| block nr |M| szx |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| block nr |M| szx |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Block option
(Note that the option with the last 4 bits masked out, shifted to the
left by the value of szx, gives the byte position of the block. The
author is not too sure whether that particularly is a feature.)
The block option is used in one of three roles:
o In the request for a GET, it gives the block number requested and
suggests a block size (block number 0) or echoes the block size of
previous blocks received (block numbers other than 0).
o In the response for a GET or in the request for a PUT or POST, it
describes what block number is contained in the payload, and
whether further blocks are part of that body (M bit). If the M
bit is set, the size of the payload body in bytes MUST indeed be
the power of two given by the block size. All blocks for a
transaction MUST use the same block size, except for the last
block (M bit not set).
o In the response for a PUT or POST, it indicates what block number
is being acknowledged. In this case, the M bit is set to indicate
that this response does not carry the final response to the
request; this can occur when the M bit was set in the request and
the server implements PUT/POST atomically (only with the receptin
of the last block).
In all cases, the block number logically extends the transaction ID,
i.e. the same transaction ID can be used for all exchanges for a
block-wise transfer. (For GET, and for PUT/POST where atomic
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
semantics are not needed, the requester is free to use different
transactions IDs for each block if desired.)
When a GET is answered with a response carrying a Block option with
the M bit set, the requestor may retrieve additional blocks by
sending requests with a Block option giving the block number desired.
In such a Block option, the M bit MUST be sent as zero and ignored on
reception.
To influence the block size used in response to a GET request, the
requestor uses the Block option, giving the desired size, a block
number of zero and an M bit of zero. A server SHOULD use the block
size indicated or a smaller size. Any further block-wise requests
for blocks beyond the first one MUST indicate the block size used in
the response for the first one.
If the Block option is used by the requestor, all GET requests in a
single transaction MUST use the same size. The server SHOULD use the
block size indicated in the request option, but the requestor MUST
take note of the actual block size used in the response; the server
MUST ensure that it uses the same block size for all responses in a
transaction (except for the last one with the M bit not set). [TBD:
decide whether the Block option can only be used in a response if a
Block option was in the request. Such a minimal block option could
be of length zero, i.e., would occupy just one byte for the type/
length information, but is a bit redundant, so it would be nice to
leave this requirement out, but then every GET requestor has the
burden of having to cope with receiving Block options.]
Block-wise transfers SHOULD be used in conjunction with the Etag
option, unless the representation being exchanged is entirely static
(not changing over time at all, such as in a schema describing a
device). When reassembling the representation from the blocks being
exchanged, the reassembler MUST compare Etag options. If the Etag
options do not match in a GET transfer, the requestor has the option
of attempting to retrieve fresh values for the blocks it retrieved
first. To minimize the resulting inefficiency, the server MAY cache
the current value of a representation for an ongoing transaction, but
there is no requirement for the server to establish any state. The
server may offer a TeRI with the initial block to reduce the size of
further block-wise GET requests; this TeRI MAY be short-lived and
specific to the version of the representation being retrieved (which
would in effect freeze the representation of the resource
specifically for the purposes of this block-wise transfer).
In a PUT or POST transfer, the block option refers to the body in the
request, i.e., there is no way to perform a block-wise retrieval of
the body of the response. Servers that do need to supply large
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
bodies in response to PUT/POST SHOULD therefore be employing
redirects, possibly offering a TeRI.
In a PUT or POST transfer that is intended to be implemented in an
atomic fashion at the server, the actual creation/replacement takes
place at the time a block with the M bit unset is received. If not
all previous blocks are available at the server at this time, the
transfer fails and error code 4__ (TBD) MUST be returned. The error
code 4__ can also be returned at any time by a server that does not
currently have the resources to store blocks for a block-wise PUT or
POST transfer that it would intend to implement in an atomic fashion.
[TBD: a way for a server to derive the equivalent of an Etag for the
request body, so that when these do not match in a PUT or POST
transfer, the reassembler MUST discard older blocks. For now, the
transaction ID will have to suffice.]
Proposal: Add a Block option (e.g., number 8) that can be used for
block-wise transfers.
Benefits: Transfers larger than can be accommodated in constrained-
network link-layer packets can be performed in smaller blocks.
No hard-to-manage conversation state is created at the adaptation
layer or IP layer for fragmentation.
The transfer of each block is acknowledged, enabling
retransmission if required.
Both sides have a say in the block size that actually will be
used.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
6. Option Encoding
The option encoding in [I-D.ietf-core-coap] is neither particularly
flexible nor particularly efficient. One important, easily
overlooked disadvantage of the encoding is the large number of ways
in which the same information can be encoded. This unneeded
variability causes problems in interoperability and increases both
coding and testing efforts required.
6.1. A More Efficient Option Encoding
The basic idea of the proposed encoding is to reduce the number of
ways the same information can be encoded as far as possible (but not
further). This both simplifies decoding (e.g., an implementation
that only ever uses short URIs never has to implement long options,
because these can only be used with long lengths) and
interoperability testing (there is only one way to say a specific
thing, so there aren't multiple ways that need testing).
One of the undesired variations in packets is the ordering of the
options. In this draft, we therefore mandate a total ordering of
options, ordered by the option number.
As an interesting consequence, the option numbers can now be
expressed in delta coding, in turn requiring fewer bits to encode the
option number. This frees a number of bits for the length, making
the likelihood of actually needing the two-byte form of the option
header much smaller.
To further reduce variation, the length of the value (as always, not
including the option header) is now encoded in such a way that there
is only one way to express a given length: The short form (one-byte
option tag) can express length values from 0 to 14, and the long form
is used for values of 15 to 15+255=270, inclusively (Figure 9).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| option delta | length | 0..14
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| option delta | 1 1 1 1 | length - 15 | 15..270
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 9: Option delta/length representation with small range
The small option delta of 0..15 in this encoding limits the
difference in option value between two adjacent options (or the value
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
of the option number of the first option). While realistic sequences
of options rarely will have a problem here, option numbers 14, 28,
... are reserved for no-op options with no body (implementations will
automatically ignore these with zero additional code; see Section 6.2
why the reserved values are not 15, 30, ...). Note that the
resulting delta that reaches the interim nop option may have any
number, e.g., for including option 2 and 27 in one message, the
sequence would be:
o delta = 2 (option 2, body)
o delta = 12 (option 14 = no-op, no body)
o delta = 13 (option 27, body)
In the unlikely case that only option 40 is needed, the sequence
would be:
o delta = 14 (option 14 = no-op, no body)
o delta = 14 (option 28 = no-op, bo body)
o delta = 12 (option 40, body)
6.2. Critical Options
CoAP is designed to enable the definition of additional options by
later extensions. Typically, new options are designed in such a way
that they can simply be ignored if not understood, i.e. new options
are _elective_. However, some new options may be _critical_, i.e.,
there is no good way to process the message if the option is not
understood. (Actually, half of the options currently on the table
are critical in nature.)
In the option encoding proposed, odd-numbered options indicate a
critical option; even-numbered options indicate elective options.
(Note that, again, the even/odd distinction is on the option number
resulting from the decoding, not the delta value actually embedded in
the packet.)
Implementing this proposal requires some renumbering of options from
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
6.3. Payload-Length Option
Not all transport mappings may provide an unambiguous length of the
CoAP message. For UDP, it may also be desirable to pack more than
one CoAP message into one UDP payload (aggregation); in that case,
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
for all but the last message there needs to be a way to delimit the
payload of that message.
We propose a new option, the Payload-Length option. If this option
is present, the value of this option is an unsigned integer giving
the length of the payload of the message (note that this integer can
be zero for a zero-length payload, which can in turn be represented
by a zero-length option value). (In the UDP aggregation case, what
would have been in the payload of this message after "payload-length"
bytes is then actually one or more additional messages.)
6.4. Problems with specific options
Problem: The Uri option currently does not provide a way to
distinguish an "absolute-URI" from an "absolute-path" [RFC3986],
as the leading slash is omitted from the latter. (Ticket #12.)
Proposal: Split the option into two variants: "Uri-Full" and
"Uri-Path". None (= "Uri-Path" with option value ''), one of
these, but never both can be present.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
7. IANA Considerations
This draft adds the following option numbers to Table 2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]:
+------+-----+--------+----------------------------+--------+-------+
| Type | C/E | Name | Data type | Length | Rules |
+------+-----+--------+----------------------------+--------+-------+
| 2 | E | TeRI | Duration + Sequence of | 2-n B | |
| | | | Bytes | | |
| | | | | | |
| 7 | E | Accept | Sequence of bytes | 1-n B | |
| | | | | | |
| 8 | C | Block | Unsigned Integer | 1-3 B | |
+------+-----+--------+----------------------------+--------+-------+
With the new option encoding and the proposal for essential options,
the total list becomes:
+------+-----+----------------+------------------+--------+---------+
| Type | C/E | Name | Data type | Length | Rules |
+------+-----+----------------+------------------+--------+---------+
| 0 | E | TeRI | Duration + | 2-n B | |
| | | | Sequence of | | |
| | | | Bytes | | |
| | | | | | |
| 1 | C | Uri-Path | String | 1-n B | |
| | | | | | |
| 2 | E | Accept | Sequence of | 1-n B | |
| | | | Bytes | | |
| | | | | | |
| 3 | C | Uri-Full | String | 1-n B | |
| | | | | | |
| 4 | E | Max-age | Duration | 1 B | |
| | | | | | |
| 5 | C | Content-type | Unsigned Integer | 1-2 B | |
| | | | | | |
| 6 | E | Etag | Sequence of | 1-4 B | |
| | | | Bytes | | |
| | | | | | |
| 8 | E | Date | Unsigned Integer | 4-6 B | (with |
| | | | (?) | | body) |
| | | | | | |
| 13 | C | Block | Unsigned Integer | 1-3 B | |
| | | | | | |
| 14.. | E | Nop | None | 0 B | |
| | | | | | |
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
| 15 | C | Payload-length | Unsigned Integer | 0-2 B | |
+------+-----+----------------+------------------+--------+---------+
(The upper limit of "n" indicates that the size is limited only by
the options encoding.) Odd option numbers indicate critical options,
even option numbers indicate elective options. Option numbers 14,
28, 42, ... (any number divisible by 14) are reserved (they are
elective and therefore ignored by all implementations).
(Subscription-related options are discussed in
[I-D.hartke-coap-observe], so the following option from
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] is not further discussed here:
+-----+-----+-----------------------+----------+--------+-----------+
| Typ | C/E | Name | Data | Length | Rules |
| e | | | type | | |
+-----+-----+-----------------------+----------+--------+-----------+
| 6 | E | Subscription-lifetime | Duration | 1 B | With |
| | | | | | SUBSCRIBE |
| | | | | | or its |
| | | | | | response |
+-----+-----+-----------------------+----------+--------+-----------+
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
8. Security Considerations
TBD. (Weigh the security implications of application layer block-
wise transfer against those of adaptation-layer or IP-layer
fragmentation. Discuss the implications of TeRIs. Also: Discuss
nodes without clocks.)
8.1. Amplification Attacks
TBD. (This section discusses how CoAP nodes could become implicated
in DoS attacks by using the amplifying properties of the protocol, as
well as mitigations for this threat.)
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.hartke-coap-observe]
Hartke, K. and C. Bormann, "Observing Resources in CoAP",
draft-hartke-coap-observe-00 (work in progress),
June 2010.
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Frank, B., and D. Sturek, "Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-00
(work in progress), June 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
9.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000.
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CoAP-misc June 2010
Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Fax: +49-421-218-7000
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Klaus Hartke
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63908
Fax: +49-421-218-7000
Email: hartke@tzi.org
Bormann & Hartke Expires January 1, 2011 [Page 24]