CoRE Working Group Z. Shelby, Ed.
Internet-Draft Sensinode
Intended status: Standards Track C. Bormann
Expires: April 21, 2011 Universitaet Bremen TZI
October 18, 2010
Blockwise transfers in CoAP
draft-ietf-core-block-00
Abstract
CoAP is a RESTful transfer protocol for constrained nodes and
networks. CoAP is based on datagram transport, which limits the
maximum size of resource representations that can be transferred
without too much fragmentation. The Block option provides a minimal
way to transfer larger representations in a block-wise fashion.
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 April 21, 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
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Block-wise transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The Block Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using the Block Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Mitigating Amplification Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 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.
CoAP is based on datagram transports such as UDP, which limit the
maximum size of resource representations that can be transferred
without creating unreasonable levels of fragmentation. The Block
option provides a minimal way to transfer larger resource
representations in a block-wise fashion.
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.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
2. 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 the
underlying datagram protocol (such as UDP), but the fragmentation/
reassembly process loads the lower layers with conversation state
that is better managed in the application layer.
This specification proposes an option 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.)
Implementation of the Block option is intended to be optional.
However, when it is present in a CoAP message, it MUST be processed;
therefore it is identified as a critical option.
The size of the blocks should not be fixed by the protocol. On the
other hand, implementation should be as simple as possible. The
Block option therefore supports 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)".
2.1. 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 "block number << (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.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NUM |M| SZX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NUM |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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NUM |M| SZX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: 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.)
NUM: Block Number. The block number is a variable 4-20 bit unsigned
integer indicating the block number being requested or provided.
Block number 0 indicates the first block of a representation.
M: More Flag. This flag indicates if this block is the last in a
representation when set. When not set it indicates that there are
one or more blocks available. When the block option is used to
retrieve a specific block number the M bit MUST be sent as zero
and ignored on reception.
SZX: Block Size. The block size indicates the size of a block to
the power of two. Thus block size = 2^(SZX + 4). Thus the
minimum block size is 16 and the maximum is 2048.
The Block option is used in one of three roles:
o In the request for a GET, the Block option 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, the
Block option 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
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
indeed be the power of two given by the block size. All blocks
for a REST 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, the Block option 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 (i.e.,
acts only upon reception of the last block).
2.2. Using the Block Option
Using the Block option, a single REST operation can be split into
multiple CoAP message transactions. Each of these message
transactions uses their own CoAP transaction ID.
When a GET is answered with a response carrying a Block option with
the M bit set, the requestor may retrieve additional blocks of the
resource representation 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 same block size
that was already used in the response for the first one.
If the Block option is used by the requestor, all GET requests in a
single transaction (except for the last one with the M bit not set)
MUST ultimately use the same size. The server SHOULD use the block
size indicated in the request option or a smaller size, but the
requestor MUST take note of the actual block size used in the
response it receives to its initial GET and proceed to use it in
subsequent GETs; the server behavior MUST ensure that this client
behavior results in the same block size for all responses in a
sequence (except for the last one with the M bit not set).
Block-wise transfers can be used to GET resources the representations
of which are entirely static (not changing over time at all, such as
in a schema describing a device), or for dynamically changing
resources. In the latter case, the Block option SHOULD be used in
conjunction with the Etag option, to ensure that the blocks being
reassembled are from the same version of the representation. When
reassembling the representation from the blocks being exchanged, the
reassembler MUST compare Etag options. If the Etag options do not
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
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 sequence of requests, but
there is no requirement for the server to establish any state. The
client MAY facilitate identifying the sequence by using the Token
option.
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
bodies in response to PUT/POST SHOULD therefore be employing
redirects.
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.
If multiple concurrently proceeding block-wise PUT or POST operations
are possible, the requestor SHOULD use the Token option to clearly
separate the different sequences. In this case, when reassembling
the representation from the blocks being exchanged to enable atomic
processing, the reassembler MUST compare any Token options present
(taking an absent Token option to default to the empty Token). If
atomic processing is not desired, there is no need to check the Token
option.
In summary, this specification: Adds a Block Option 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.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
TBD: Give examples with detailed message flows for a block-wise GET,
PUT and POST.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
3. IANA Considerations
This draft adds the following option number to Table 2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]:
+------+-----+-------+----------------+--------+--------------------+
| Type | C/E | Name | Data type | Length | Default |
+------+-----+-------+----------------+--------+--------------------+
| 13 | C | Block | Unsigned | 1-3 B | 0 (see |
| | | | Integer | | Section 2.1) |
+------+-----+-------+----------------+--------+--------------------+
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
4. Security Considerations
TBD. (Weigh the security implications of application layer block-
wise transfer against those of adaptation-layer or IP-layer
fragmentation.)
4.1. Mitigating 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.)
A CoAP server can reduce the amount of amplification it provides to
an attacker by offering large resource representations only in
relatively small blocks. E.g., for a 1000 byte resource, a 10-byte
request might result in an 80-byte response (with a 64-byte block)
instead of a 1016-byte response, considerably reducing the
amplification provided.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
5. Acknowledgements
Of course, much of the content of this draft is the result of
discussions with the [I-D.ietf-core-coap] authors. Tokens were
suggested by Gilman Tolle and refined by Klaus Hartke.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Frank, B., and D. Sturek, "Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-02
(work in progress), September 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.
6.2. Informative References
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", 2000.
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP-block October 2010
Authors' Addresses
Zach Shelby (editor)
Sensinode
Kidekuja 2
Vuokatti 88600
FINLAND
Phone: +358407796297
Email: zach@sensinode.com
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
Shelby & Bormann Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 13]
