CoRE Z. Shelby
Internet-Draft Sensinode
Intended status: Standards Track B. Frank
Expires: March 31, 2011 SkyFoundry
D. Sturek
Pacific Gas & Electric
September 27, 2010
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-ietf-core-coap-02
Abstract
This document specifies the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP),
a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained networks
and nodes for machine-to-machine applications such as smart energy
and building automation. These constrained nodes often have 8-bit
microcontrollers with small amounts of ROM and RAM, while networks
such as 6LoWPAN often have high packet error rates and a typical
throughput of 10s of kbit/s. CoAP provides a method/response
interaction model between application end-points, supports built-in
resource discovery, and includes key web concepts such as URIs and
content-types. CoAP easily translates to HTTP for integration with
the web while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast
support, very low overhead and simplicity for constrained
environments.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 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 BSD License.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Constrained Application Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Interaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Synchronous response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. Asynchronous response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Transaction messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Confirmable (CON) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. Non-Confirmable (NON) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Acknowledgment (ACK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4. Reset (RST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.5. Transaction IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.4. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.1. Option Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.3. Content-type encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. CoAP header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Header options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.1. Content-type Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.2. Uri-Authority Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3. Uri-Path Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.4. Location Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.5. Max-age Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.6. Etag Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. UDP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4. Default Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Cache control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Cache refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. HTTP Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Securing CoAP with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2. Securing CoAP with DTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
10.3. Threat analysis and protocol limitations . . . . . . . . . 26
10.3.1. Processing URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.3.2. Proxying and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.3.3. Attacks on TIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.3.4. Risk of amplification using multicast . . . . . . . . 27
10.3.5. Asynchronous responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1. Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. Content Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
1. Introduction
The use of web services on the Internet has become ubiquitous in most
applications, and depends on the fundamental Representational State
Transfer (REST) architecture of the web.
The Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) working group aims at
realizing the REST architecture in a suitable form for the most
constrained nodes (e.g. 8-bit microcontrollers with limited RAM and
ROM) and networks (e.g. 6LoWPAN). Constrained networks like 6LoWPAN
support the expensive fragmentation of IPv6 packets into small link-
layer frames. One design goal of CoRE has been to keep message
overhead small, thus limiting the use of fragmentation.
One of the main goals of CoRE is to design a generic web protocol for
the special requirements of this constrained environment, especially
considering energy, building automation and other M2M applications.
The goal of CoAP is not to blindly compress HTTP, but rather to
realize a subset of REST common with HTTP but optimized for M2M
applications. Although CoRE could be used for compressing simple
HTTP interfaces, it more importantly also offers features for M2M
such as built-in discovery, multicast support and asynchronous
transactions.
This document specifies the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) ,
which easily translates to HTTP for integration with the existing web
while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support,
very low overhead and simplicity for constrained environments and M2M
applications [I-D.shelby-core-coap-req]. CoAP has the following main
features:
o Constrained web protocol fulfilling M2M requirements.
o A stateless HTTP mapping, allowing proxies to be built providing
access to CoAP resources via HTTP in a uniform way or for HTTP
simple interfaces to be realized alternatively over CoAP.
o UDP binding with reliable unicast and best-effort multicast
support.
o Asynchronous transaction support.
o Low header overhead and parsing complexity.
o URI and Content-type support.
o Built-in resource discovery.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
o Simple proxy and caching capabilities.
2. Constrained Application Protocol
This section specifies the basic functionality and processing rules
of the protocol.
2.1. Interaction Model
The interaction model of CoAP is similar to the client/server model
of HTTP. However, Machine-to-machine interactions typically result
in a CoAP implementation acting in both client and server roles
(called an end-point). A CoAP exchange is equivalent to that of
HTTP, and is sent by a client to request an action (using a Method
Code) on a resource (identified by a URI) on a server. A response is
then sent with a Response Code and resource representation if
appropriate.
Unlike HTTP, CoAP deals with these interchanges asynchronously over a
UDP transport with support for both unicast and multicast
interactions. This is achieved using transaction messages
(Confirmable, Non-Confirmable, Acknowledgment, Reset) supporting
optional reliability (with exponential back-off) and transaction IDs
between end-points to carry requests and responses. These
transactions are transparent to the request/response interchanges.
The only difference being that responses may arrive asynchronously.
One could think of CoAP as using a two-layer approach, a
transactional layer used to deal with UDP and the asynchronous nature
of the interactions, and the request/response interactions using
Method and Response codes.
+---------------------+
| Application |
+---------------------+
+---------------------+
| CoAP Req/Res |
|---------------------|
| CoAP Transactions |
+---------------------+
+---------------------+
| UDP |
+---------------------+
Figure 1: Abstract layering of CoAP
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
2.1.1. Synchronous response
The most basic interaction between the Req/Res and Transaction layers
works by sending a request in a confirmable CoAP message and waiting
for an acknowledgment message that also carries the response. E.g.,
two possible interactions for a basic GET are shown in Figure 2.
Client Server Client Server
| | | |
| CON tid=47 | | CON tid=53 |
| GET /foo | | GET /baz |
+---------------->| +---------------->|
| | | |
| ACK tid=47 | | ACK tid=53 |
| 200 "<temp... | | 404 "Not... |
|<----------------+ |<----------------+
| | | |
Figure 2: Two basic GET transactions, one successful, one not found
Note that at the transaction layer, the response is returned in an
ACK message, independent of whether the request was successful at the
Req/Res layer. In effect, the response is piggy-backed on the ACK
message, so no separate acknowledgment is required that the GET
message was received.
The relationship between the confirmable message (CON) and the
acknowledgment message (ACK) is indicated by the transaction ID,
which is echoed back by the server in the ACK. Transaction IDs are
short-lived, they only serve to couple CON and ACK messages.
The tight coupling between CON and ACK also relieves the ACK of the
need to echo back information from the request, such as the URI or a
request token supplied by the client. We say that a response carried
in an ACK _pertains_ to the request in the corresponding CON.
2.1.2. Asynchronous response
Not all interactions are as simple as the basic synchronous exchange
shown. For example, a server might need longer to obtain the
representation of the resource requested than it can wait sending
back the acknowledgment, without risking the client to repeatedly
retransmit the request. To handle this case, the response is
decoupled from the transaction layer acknowledgment. Actually, the
latter does not carry any message at all.
As the client cannot know that this will be the case, it sends
exactly the same confirmable message with the same request. The
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
server maybe attempts to obtain the resource (e.g., by acting as a
proxy) and times out an ACK timer, or it immediately sends an
acknowledgment knowing in advance that there will be no quick answer.
The acknowledgment effectively is a promise that the request will be
acted upon, see Figure 3.
Client Server
| |
| CON tid=48 |
| GET http://n.. |
+---------------->|
| |
| ACK tid=48 |
|<----------------+
| |
... Time Passes ...
| |
| CON tid=783 |
| 200 http://n.. |
| "<html.. |
|<----------------+
| |
| ACK tid=783 |
+---------------->|
| |
Figure 3: An asynchronous GET transaction
When the server finally has obtained the resource representation and
is ready to send the response, it initiates a transaction to the
client. This new transaction has its own transaction ID, so there is
no automatic coupling of the response to the request. Instead, the
URI (and possibly token) is echoed back to the client in order to
associate the response to the original request. To ensure that this
message is not lost, it is again sent as a confirmable message and
answered by the client with an ACK, citing the new TID chosen by the
server.
As a special failure situation, a client may no longer be aware that
it sent a request, e.g., if it does not have stable storage and was
rebooted in the meantime. This can be indicated by a special "Reset"
message, as shown in Figure 4.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
Client Server
... Client reboots ...
| |
| CON tid=783 |
| 200 http://n.. |
| "<html.. |
|<----------------+
| |
| RST tid=783 |
+---------------->|
| |
Figure 4: An orphaned transaction
2.2. Transaction messages
The CoAP transactions make use of four different message types,
described in this section. These messages are transparent to the
request/response carried over them.
2.2.1. Confirmable (CON)
Some messages require an acknowledgment, either just to know they did
arrive or also to deliver the reply to a request. We call these
messages "Confirmable". When no packets are lost, each Confirmable
message elicits exactly one return message of type Acknowledgment or
type Reset.
2.2.2. Non-Confirmable (NON)
Some other messages do not require an acknowledgment. This is
particularly true for messages that are repeated regularly for
application requirements, such as repeated readings from a sensor
where eventual arrival is sufficient.
2.2.3. Acknowledgment (ACK)
An Acknowledgment message acknowledges that a specific Confirmable
message (identified by its Transaction ID) arrived. As with all of
the message types itself, it may carry a payload and some options to
provide more details, such as the result of a request that was
carried in the Confirmable.
2.2.4. Reset (RST)
A Reset message indicates that a specific Confirmable message was
received, but some context is missing to properly process it. This
condition is usually caused when the receiving node has rebooted and
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
has forgotten some state that would be required to interpret the
message.
2.2.5. Transaction IDs
The Transaction ID is an unsigned integer kept by a CoAP end-point
for all of the CoAP Confirmable or Non-Confirmable messages it sends.
Each CoAP end-point keeps a single Transaction ID variable, which is
changed each time a new Confirmable or Non-Confirmable message is
sent regardless of the destination address or port. The Transaction
ID is used to match an Acknowledgment with an outstanding request,
for retransmission and to discard duplicate messages. The initial
Transaction ID should be randomized. The same Transaction ID MUST
NOT be re-used within the potential retransmission window, calculated
as RESPONSE_TIMEOUT * (2 ^ MAX_RETRANSMIT - 1).
2.3. Methods
CoAP supports the basic methods of GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, which are
easily mapped to HTTP. In this section each method is defined along
with its behavior. A unicast request with an unknown or unsupported
Method Code MUST generate a message with a "405 Method Not Allowed"
Response Code.
As CoAP methods manipulate resources, they have the same properties
of safe (only retrieval) and idempotent (you can invoke it multiple
times with the same effects) as HTTP Section 9.1 [RFC2616]. The GET
method is safe, therefore it MUST NOT take any other action on a
resource other than retrieval. The GET, PUT and DELETE methods MUST
be performed in such a way that they are idempotent. Unlike PUT,
POST is not idempotent because the URI in the request indicates the
resource that will handle the enclosed body. This resource indicated
by the POST may be used for data processing, a gateway to other
protocols and it may create a new resource as a result of the POST.
2.3.1. GET
The GET method retrieves the information of the resource identified
by the request URI. Upon success a 200 (OK) response SHOULD be sent.
The response to a GET is cacheable if it meets the requirements in
Section 5.
2.3.2. POST
The POST method is used to request the server to create a new
resource under the requested URI. If a resource has been created on
the server, the response SHOULD be 201 (Created) including the URI of
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
the new resource in a Location Option with any possible status in the
message body. If the POST succeeds but does not result in a new
resource being created on the server, a 200 (OK) response code SHOULD
be returned.
Responses to this method are not cacheable.
2.3.3. PUT
The PUT method requests that the resource identified by the request
URI be updated or created with the enclosed message body. If a
resource exists at that URI the message body SHOULD be considered a
modified version of that resource, and a 200 (OK) response SHOULD be
returned. If no resource exists then the server MAY create a new
resource with that URI, resulting in a 201 (Created) response. If
the resource could not be created or modified, then an appropriate
error response code SHOULD be sent.
Responses to this method are not cacheable.
2.3.4. DELETE
The DELETE method requests that the resource identified by the
request URI be deleted. The response 200 (OK) SHOULD be sent on
success.
Responses to this method are not cacheable.
2.4. Response Codes
CoAP makes use of a subset of HTTP response codes as defined in
Section 11.1.
2.5. Options
CoAP makes use of compact, extensible Type-Length-Value (TLV) style
options. This section explains the processing of CoAP options along
with a summary of the main features implemented in options such as
URIs and Content-types.
2.5.1. Option Processing
If no options are to be included, the Option Count field is set to 0
below and the Payload (if any) immediately follows the Transaction
ID. If options are to be included, the following rules apply. The
number of options is placed in the Option Count field. Each option
is then placed in order of Type, immediately following the
Transaction ID with no padding. Upon reception, unknown options of
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
class "elective" MUST be silently skipped. Unknown options of class
"critical" in a Confirmable SHOULD cause the return of a response
code "400 Bad Request" (TBD) including a copy of the critical option
number in the payload of the response.
2.5.2. URIs
The Universal Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC3986] is an important
feature of the web architecture, where the relative part of the URI
indicates the resource being manipulated. CoAP supports URIs
similarly to HTTP, e.g. coap://[2001:DB8::101]/s/temp. As this URI
is used purely as a locator, CoAP only supports Universal Resource
Locator features of [RFC3986] although throughout the document we
refer to URI.
CoAP splits the URI up into its three parts with the default coap://
scheme, Uri-Authority and Uri-Path Options. The full URI can be
created by concatenating those parts (or their defaults if not
present). CoAP does not support "." or ".." in URIs nor does it
support IRIs. A CoAP implementation SHOULD support query "?"
processing, however fragment "#" processing is not supported. All
URI strings in CoAP MUST use the US-ASCII encoding defined in
[RFC3986]. When using the Uri-Path Option the leading slash MUST be
omitted. Thus the above example "/s/temp" is included in the Uri-
Path Option as "s/temp".
The authority part of a URI is important in determining the correct
representation to return on end-points maintaining virtual servers
and for intermediate components such as proxies. For this reason it
is important that the full URI can be reconstructed when needed.
However, at the same time, it is often advantageous for CoAP to elide
the Uri-Authority when it is unknown or identical to the IPv6
destination address for efficiency. The following rules apply to
processing a CoAP request:
1. If the Uri-Authority option is absent and the remainder of the
URI uniquely identifies a resource the server MAY proceed to
execute the request.
2. If an origin server is able to determine the IP destination
address of the request, it MAY assume this as the authority of
the URI.
3. If no authority can be determined and the server requires the
authority to identify the resource it MUST reject the request
with "400 Bad Request" (TBD: 400 is already overloaded, thus a
new response code may be created for this purpose).
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
Application designers are encouraged to make use of short, but
descriptive URIs. For example URIs 14 or less bytes in length fit in
a more compact option header. In addition, very short URIs such as
"/1" can be assigned as an alternative short URI for a resource by
the application. The CoRE Link Format includes an attribute to
indicate if a short alternative URI of a resource is available (REF).
The CoAP protocol scheme is identified in URIs with "coap://"
[IANA_TBD_SCHEME].
2.5.3. Content-type encoding
In order to support heterogeneous uses, CoAP is transparent to the
use of different application payloads. In order for the application
process receiving a packet to properly parse a payload, its content-
type should be explicitly known from the header (as e.g. with HTTP).
The use of typical binary encodings for XML is discussed in
[I-D.shelby-6lowapp-encoding].
String names of Internet media types (MIME types) [RFC2046] are not
optimal for use in the CoAP header. Instead, CoAP simply assigns
identifiers to a subset of common media and content transfer encoding
types. The content-type identifier is optionally included in the
Content-type Option Header of messages to indicate the type of the
message body. CoAP Content-type identifiers are defined in
Section 11.2. In the absence of the Content-type Option the MIME
type "text/plain" MUST BE assumed.
3. Message Formats
CoAP makes use of asynchronous transactions using a simple binary
header format. This base header may be followed by options in Type-
Length-Value (TLV) format. CoAP is bound to UDP as described in
Section 4.
Any bytes after the headers in the packet are considered the message
payload, if any. The length of the message payload is implied by the
datagram length. See Section 4 for further message length
requirements.
3.1. CoAP header
This section defines the CoAP header, which is shared for all CoAP
messages. CoAP makes use of an asynchronous transaction model.
These transactions are used to carry request/response exchanges,
either using a Method Code (GET/PUT/POST/DELETE) to invoke
interaction with a resource, or a Response Code carried in an
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
immediate or asynchronous response.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver| T | OC | Code | Transaction ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options (if any) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload (if any) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: CoAP header format
Header Fields:
Ver: Version. 2-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the version of
CoAP. Implementations of this specification MUST set this
field to 1. Other values are reserved for future versions.
T: 2-bit unsigned integer Transaction Type field. Indicates if
this message is Confirmable (0), Non-Confirmable (1),
Acknowledgment (2) or Reset (3).
OC: 4-bit unsigned integer Option Count field. Indicates if
there are Option Headers following the base header. If set to
0 the payload (if any) immediately follows the base header. If
greater than zero the field indicates the number of options to
immediately follow the header.
Code: 8-bit unsigned integer. This field indicates the Method or
Response Code of a message. The value 0 indicates no code.
The values 1-10 are used for Method Codes as defined in
Table 1. The values 11-39 are reserved for future use. The
values 40-255 are used for Response Codes as defined in
Section 11.1.
Transaction ID: 16-bit unsigned integer. A unique Transaction ID
assigned by the source and used to match responses. The
Transaction ID MUST be changed for each new request (regardless
of the end-point) and MUST NOT be changed when retransmitting a
request (see Section 2.2.5).
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
+--------+------+
| Method | Code |
+--------+------+
| GET | 1 |
| POST | 2 |
| PUT | 3 |
| DELETE | 4 |
+--------+------+
Table 1: Method Codes
3.2. Header options
CoAP messages may also include one or more header options in TLV
format. Options MUST appear in order of option type (see Table 2).
A delta encoding is used between each option header, with the Type
identifier for each Option calculated as the sum of its Option Delta
field and the Type identifier of the preceding Option in the message,
if any, or zero otherwise.
Each option header includes a Length field which can be extended by
an octet for options with values longer than 14 octets. CoAP options
include the concept of Critical (odd value) and Elective (even value)
options (see Section 2.5.1).
Each option has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| option delta | length | for 0..14
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
for 15..270:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| option delta | 1 1 1 1 | length - 15 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 6: Header option format
Option delta: 4-bit unsigned integer. This field defines the
difference between the option Type of this option and the previous
option (or zero for the first option). In other words, the Type
identifier is calculated by simply summing the Option delta fields
of this and previous options before it. The Option Values 14, 28,
... are reserved for no-op options with no value (they are
ignored) and are used for deltas larger than 14. Thus these can
be used as "fenceposts" if deltas larger than 15 would otherwise
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
be required.
Length: Length Field. Normally Length is a 4-bit unsigned integer
allowing values of 0-14 octets. When the length is 15 or more,
another byte is added as an 8-bit unsigned integer plus 15
allowing values of 15-270 octets.
Option Value The value in the format defined for that option in
Table 2 of Length octets. Options MAY use variable length values.
The following options are defined in this document. The Default
column indicates the value to be assumed in the absence of this
option (if any).
+------+-----+---------------+--------------+--------+--------------+
| Type | C/E | Name | Data type | Length | Default |
+------+-----+---------------+--------------+--------+--------------+
| 0 | - | Reserved | - | - | - |
| 1 | C | Content-type | 8-bit | 1 B | 0 |
| | | | unsigned | | (text/plain) |
| | | | integer | | |
| 2 | E | Max-age | Variable | 1-4 B | 60 seconds |
| | | | length | | |
| | | | unsigned | | |
| | | | integer | | |
| 3 | C | - | Reserved | - | - |
| 4 | E | Etag | Sequence of | 1-4 B | - |
| | | | bytes | | |
| 5 | C | Uri-Authority | String | 1-270 | "" |
| | | | | B | |
| 6 | E | Location | String | 1-270 | - |
| | | | | B | |
| 7 | - | Reserved | - | - | - |
| 9 | C | Uri-Path | String | 1-270 | "" |
| | | | | B | |
+------+-----+---------------+--------------+--------+--------------+
Table 2: Option headers
3.2.1. Content-type Option
The Content-type Identifier Option indicates the Internet media type
identifier of the message-body, see Section 11.2 for the encoding and
identifier tables. A Content-type Identifier Option SHOULD be
included if there is a payload included with a CoAP message. In the
absence of the Content-type Option the MIME type "text/plain" (0)
MUST be assumed. This option MUST be supported by all end-points.
This option MUST NOT occur more than once in a header.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
3.2.2. Uri-Authority Option
The Uri-Authority Option indicates the authority (host + port) part
of a URI. Examples of this option include "[2001:DB8::101]",
"198.51.100.0:8000" and "sensor.example.com". This option is used by
servers to determine which resource to return and by intermediate
components, e.g. when accessing a resource via a proxy.
Section 2.5.2 specifies the rules for URIs in CoAP. This option
SHOULD be included in a request when the authority of the URI is
known. This option MUST be supported by an end-point implementing
proxy functionality. This option MUST NOT occur more than once in a
header.
3.2.3. Uri-Path Option
The Uri-Path Option indicates the absolute path part of a URI. One
example of an absolute path in his option is "s/light". In the
absence of this option, the path is assumed to be "/". Section 2.5.2
specifies the rules for URIs in CoAP. The leading slash is assumed
and MUST be omitted. This option MUST be supported by all end-
points. This option MUST NOT occur more than once in a header.
3.2.4. Location Option
The Location Option indicates the location of a resource as an
absolute path URI and is similar to the Uri-Path Option. The
Location Option MAY be included in a response to indicate the
Location of a new resource created with POST or together with a 30x
response code. The leading slash is assumed and MUST be omitted.
This option MUST NOT occur more than once in a header.
3.2.5. Max-age Option
The Max-age Option indicates the maximum age of the resource for use
in cache control in seconds. The option value is represented as a
variable length unsigned integer between 8 and 32 bits. A default
value of 60 seconds is assumed in the absence of this option.
When included in a request, Max-age indicates the maximum age of a
cached representation of that resource the client will accept. When
included in a response, Max-age indicates the maximum time the
representation may be cached before it MUST be discarded. This
option MUST NOT occur more than once in a header.
3.2.6. Etag Option
The Etag Option is an opaque sequence of bytes which specifies the
version of a resource representation. An Etag may be generated for a
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
resource in any number of ways including a version, checksum, hash or
time. An end-point receiving an Etag MUST treat it as opaque and
make no assumptions about its format. The Etag MAY be included in a
response to indicate to a client if a resource has changed. The Etag
SHOULD be included in a request used for a cache refresh to indicate
the client's current version of the resource (see Section 5.2).
4. UDP Binding
The CoAP protocol operates by default over UDP. CoAP may also be
used with Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as described in
Section 10. CoAP could also be used over other transports such as
TCP or SCTP, the specification of which is out of this document's
scope.
The goal of binding CoAP to UDP is to provide the bare minimum
features for the protocol to operate over UDP, without trying to re-
create the full feature set of a transport like TCP. CoAP over UDP
has the following features:
o Simple stop-and-wait retransmission reliability with exponential
back-off as described in Section 4.2 for Confirmable messages.
o Transaction ID for response matching as described in
Section 2.2.5.
o Multicast support as described in Section 4.1.
The length of the Payload in a CoAP message is calculated from the
datagram length. While specific link layers make it beneficial to
keep CoAP messages small enough to fit into their link layer packets
(see Section 1), this is a matter of implementation quality. The
CoAP specification itself provides only an upper bound to the message
size. A CoAP message SHOULD fit within a single IP packet and MUST
fit within a single IP datagram. If the Path MTU is not known for a
destination, an MTU of 1280 octets SHOULD be assumed.
4.1. Multicast
CoAP supports the use of multicast destination addresses. Multicast
messages SHOULD be Non-Confirmable. If a Confirmable multicast
message is sent then retransmission MUST NOT be performed.
Furthermore, a destination end-point to a multicast Confirmable
message MUST only send an Acknowledgment if the response code
included indicates success (Code = 2XX) in order to eliminate error
code response floods. Other mechanisms for avoiding congestion from
multicast requests are being considered in
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control].
4.2. Retransmission
A CoAP end-point keeps track of open Confirmable messages it sent
that are waiting for a response. Each entry includes at least the
destination IP address and port of the original message, the message
itself, a retransmission counter and a timeout. When a Confirmable
is sent, an entry is made for that message with a default initial
timeout of RESPONSE_TIMEOUT and the retransmission counter set to 0.
When a matching Acknowledgment is received for an entry, the entry is
invalidated. When a timeout is triggered for an entry and the
retransmission counter is less than MAX_RETRANSMIT, the original
message is retransmitted to the destination without modification, the
retransmission counter is incremented, and the timeout is doubled.
If the retransmission counter reaches MAX_RETRANSMIT on a timeout,
then the entry is removed and the application process informed of
delivery failure.
For CoAP messages sent to IP multicast addresses, retransmission MUST
NOT be performed. Therefore MAX_RETRANSMIT is always set to 0 when
the destination address is multicast.
4.3. Congestion Control
In addition to the exponential back-off mechanism in Section 4.2,
further congestion control optimizations are being considered and
tested for CoAP. These congestion control mechanism under
consideration are described in [I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control].
4.4. Default Port
The CoAP default port number [IANA_TBD_PORT] MUST be supported by a
server for resource discovery (see Section 6) and SHOULD be supported
for providing access to other resources. In addition other end-
points may be hosted in the dynamic port space.
When a CoAP server is hosted by a 6LoWPAN node, it SHOULD support a
port in the 61616-61631 compressed UDP port space defined in
[RFC4944]. The specific port number in use will be communicated in a
URI and/or by some other discovery mechanism.
5. Caching
CoAP end-points are by definition constrained by bandwidth and
processing power. To optimize the performance of data transfer under
these constraints, we use caching features consistent with HTTP.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
Caching includes the following concepts:
o Cache life of a resource is controlled via the Max-Age header
option
o Cache refresh and versioning of a resource is controlled via the
Etag header option
o Proxies between a client and end-point may participate in the
caching process on behalf of sleeping end-points and to avoid
unnecessary traffic on the constrained network
5.1. Cache control
When an end-point responds to a GET request by sending a
representation of the resource, it SHOULD specify the Max-Age header
option. The Max-Age specifies the cache life of the resource in
seconds. Resources which change rapidly will have a short cache
life, and resources which change infrequently should specify a long
cache life. If Max-Age is unspecified in a GET response, then it is
assumed to be 60 seconds. If an end-point wishes to disable caching,
it must explicitly specify a Max-Age of zero seconds.
When a client reads the response from a GET request, it should cache
the resource representation for the cache lifetime as specified by
the Max-Age header. During the cache lifetime, the client SHOULD use
its cached version and avoid performing additional GETs for the
resource.
In general, the origin server end-point is responsible for
determining cache age. However, in some cases a client may wish to
determine its own tolerance for cache staleness. In this case, a
client may specify the Max-Age header during a GET request. If the
client's Max-Age is of a shorter duration than the age of a cached
resource, then the proxy or end-point SHOULD perform a cache refresh.
If the client specifies a Max-Age of zero seconds, then the response
MUST discard the cached representation and return a fresh
representation.
5.2. Cache refresh
After the expiration of the cache lifetime, clients and proxies can
refresh their cached representation of a resource. Cache refresh is
accomplished using a GET request which will return a representation
of the resource's current state.
If the end-point has the capability to version the resource, then the
end-point should include the Etag header option in the response to a
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
GET request. The Etag is a variable length sequence of bytes which
captures a version identifier of the resource. The Etag is an opaque
identifier; clients MUST NOT infer any semantics from the Etag value.
If an end-point specifies the Etag header option with a response,
then the client SHOULD specify a matching Etag header option in their
GET request during cache refresh. If the end-point's version of the
resource is unmodified, then the server SHOULD return a 304 response
with no payload to avoid retransmitting the resource representation.
5.3. Proxying
A proxy is defined as a CoAP end-point which services cached requests
on behalf of other CoAP end-points. Any node in a CoAP network may
act as a proxy, although in general the node between the constrained
network and the Internet at large SHOULD always support proxy
functionality.
Proxies should be used under the following scenarios:
o Clients external to the constrained network SHOULD always make
requests through a proxy to limit traffic on the constrained
network
o Clients internal to the constrained network MAY use a proxy based
on network topology when performance warrants
o Clients of sleeping devices MUST use a proxy to access resources
while the device is sleeping
Proxy requests are made as normal CON requests to the proxy end-
point. All proxy requests MUST use the Uri-Authority header to
indicate the origin server's IP address using the URI format defined
by RFC 3986:
full uri = "coap://" + authority + path
authority = host [ ":" port ]
host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
(as defined by RFC 3986)
port = *DIGIT
The host part is case insensitive and may be an IPv4 literal, IPv6
literal in square brackets, or a registered name. The port number is
optional, if omitted or zero-length it is assumed to be the default
CoAP port (see Section 4.4).
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
When a request is made to a proxy, then the following steps are
taken:
1. If the authority (host and port) is recognized as identifying
the proxy end-point, then the request MUST be treated as a local
request and the path part is used as Uri-Path
2. If the proxy does not contain a fresh cached representation of
the resource, then the proxy MUST attempt to refresh its cache
according to section 5.2. The origin server's IP address and port
is determined by the authority part of the full URI. The Uri-Path
option for the refresh request is determined by the path part of
the full URI.
3. If the proxy fails to obtain a fresh cached representation,
then a 502 Bad Gateway error code MUST be returned
4. The proxy returns the cached representation on behalf of the
origin server
All CoAP options are considered end-to-end and MUST be stored as part
of the cache entry and MUST be transmitted in the proxy's response.
The Max-Age option should be adjusted by the proxy for each response
using the formula: proxy-max-age = original-max-age - cache-age. For
example if a request is made to a proxied resource that was refreshed
20sec ago and had an original Max-Age of 60sec, then that resource's
proxied Max-Age is now 40sec.
6. Resource Discovery
The discovery of resources offered by a CoAP end-point is extremely
important in machine-to-machine applications where there are no
humans in the loop and static interfaces result in fragility. A CoAP
end-point SHOULD support the CoRE Link Format of discoverable
resources as described in (REF).
7. HTTP Mapping
CoAP supports a limited subset of HTTP functionality, and thus a
mapping to HTTP is straightforward. There might be several reasons
for mapping between CoAP and HTTP, for example when designing a web
interface for use over either protocol or when realizing a CoAP-HTTP
proxy. Likewise, CoAP could equally be mapped to other protocols
such as XMPP or SIP, the definition of which is out of scope.
The mapping of CoAP to HTTP is a straightforward conversion of the
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
CoAP method or response code, content-type and options to the
corresponding HTTP feature. The payload is carried in an equivalent
way by both protocols. The mapping of HTTP to CoAP requires checking
for methods, response codes, options and content-types that are not
supported by CoAP. A mapping SHOULD attempt to map options, response
codes and content-types to a suitable alternative if possible.
Otherwise the unsupported feature SHOULD be silently dropped if
possible, or an appropriate error code generated otherwise.
The caching and proxying of CoAP is specified in Section 5. In a
similar manner, caching and proxying MAY be performed between CoAP
and HTTP by an intermediate node. A proxy SHOULD respond with a 502
(Bad Gateway) error to HTTP requests which can not be successfully
mapped to CoAP. CoAP transaction messages are transparent to
request/response exchanges and MUST have no affect on a proxy
function.
8. Protocol Constants
This section defines the relevant protocol constants defined in this
document:
RESPONSE_TIMEOUT 1 second
MAX_RETRANSMIT 5
9. Examples
Figure 7 shows a basic request sequence. A client makes a
Confirmable GET request for the resource /temperature to the server
with a Transaction ID of 1234. The request includes one Uri-Path
Option (delta 0 + 9 = 9) "temperature" of Len = 11. This request is
a total of 16 octets long. The corresponding Acknowledgment is of
Code 200 OK and includes a Payload of "22.3 C". The Transaction ID
is 1234, thus the transaction is successfully completed. The
response is 10 octets long and a Content-type of 0 (text/plain) is
assumed as there is no Content-type Option.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
CLIENT SERVER
| |
| ----- CON + GET /temperature [TID=1234] ------> |
| |
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | GET = 1 | TID=1234 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 9 | 11 | "temperature" (11 Octets) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
CLIENT SERVER
| |
| <-------- ACK + 200 OK [TID=1234] --------- |
| |
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 2 | 0 | Code=80 | TID=1234 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "22.3 C" (6 Octets) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Basic request/response
Figure 8 shows an example of a retransmission using the previous
request. The first ACK from the server is lost, and after
RESPONSE_TIMEOUT seconds the client retransmits the request.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
CLIENT SERVER
| |
| ----- CON + GET /temperature [TID=1234] ------> |
| |
| X------------------------ |
| |
RESPONSE_TIMEOUT
| |
| ----- CON + GET /temperature [TID=1234] ------> |
| |
| |
| <-------- ACK + 200 OK [TID=1234] --------- |
Payload:
22.3 C
Figure 8: Basic request/response
Figure 9 shows an example of resource discovery. Here a unicast GET
request is made to the server for /.well-known/core, which returns a
list of two resource descriptions. The client then decides to make a
request for the short URI of /sensor/light (/l). Requesting
/sensors/light would result in the same representation.
CLIENT SERVER
| |
| ----- CON + GET /.well-known/core [TID=5068] -----> |
| |
| <----- ACK + 200 OK [TID=5068, CT=40] ------ |
Payload:
</sensor/temp>;sh="/t";ct=0,41;n="Temperature",
</sensor/light>;sh="/l";ct=41;n="Light"
| |
| ----- CON + GET /l [TID=5069] ------> |
| |
| <---- ACK + 200 OK [TID=5069, CT=41] ----- |
Payload:
<?xml?><Light unit="Lux">45</Light>
Figure 9: Basic request/response
Figure 10 shows an example of a multicast request. Here a client
sends a request for /.well-known/core with a query for ?n=Light
(Resource name = Light) to all-nodes link-scope multicast. There are
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
3 servers on the link: A, B and C. Servers A and B have a matching
resource, therefore they send back a successful 200 OK response with
the matching resource in the payload. C does not attempt to send a
response.
CLIENT FF02::1
| |
| -- CON + GET /.well-known/core?n=Light [TID=7000] --> |
| |
| <----- ACK + 200 OK [TID=7000, CT=40] ------ SERVER A
Payload:
</sensor/light>;sh="/l";ct=41;n="Light"
| |
| <----- ACK + 200 OK [TID=7000, CT=40] ------ SERVER B
Payload:
</light>;ct=41;n="Light"
Figure 10: Basic request/response
10. Security Considerations
This section describes mechanisms that can be used to secure CoAP and
analyzes the possible threats to the protocol and its limitations.
Security bootstrapping (setting up keys) in constrained environments
is considered in [I-D.oflynn-core-bootstrapping].
10.1. Securing CoAP with IPSec
One mechanism to secure CoAP in constrained environments is the IPsec
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC2406]. Using IPsec ESP with
the appropriate configuration it is possible for many constrained
devices to support encryption with built-in link-layer encryption
hardware, for example most IEEE 802.15.4 radio chips are compatible
with AES-CBC (with 128-bit keys) [RFC3602] as defined for use with
IPsec in [RFC4835]. When using IPsec to secure CoAP, both
authentication and confidentiality SHOULD be applied as recommended
in [RFC2406]. The use of IPsec between CoAP end-points is
transparent to the application layer and does not require special
consideration for a CoAP implementation.
IPsec may not be appropriate for all environments. For example,
IPsec support is not available for many embedded IP stacks and even
in full PC operating systems or on backend web servers, application
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
developers may not have sufficient access to configure or enable
IPsec or to add a security gateway to the infrastructure. Problems
with firewalls and NATs may furthermore limit the use of IPsec.
10.2. Securing CoAP with DTLS
Just as HTTP may be secured using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over
TCP, CoAP may be secured using Datagram TLS (DTLS) [RFC4347] over
UDP. This section describes how to secure CoAP with DTLS , along
with the minimal configurations appropriate for constrained
environments. DTLS is in practice TLS with added features to deal
with the unreliable nature of the UDP transport.
In some constrained nodes (limited flash and/or RAM) and networks
(limited bandwidth or high scalability requirements) DTLS may not be
applicable. The protocol is an order of magnitude more complex than
CoAP and has appreciable handshake overhead needed to maintain
security sessions. DTLS makes sense for applications where the
session maintenance makes is compatible with application flows and
sufficient resources are available on the constrained nodes and for
the added network overhead.
As with IPSec, DTLS should be configured with a cypher suite
compatible with any possible hardware engine on the node, for example
AES-CBC in the case of IEEE 802.15.4. Implementations MUST support
the mandatory to implement cipher suite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
as specified in [RFC5246].
10.3. Threat analysis and protocol limitations
This section is meant to inform protocol and application developers
about the security limitations of CoAP as described in this document.
As CoAP realizes a subset of the features in HTTP/1.1, the security
considerations in Section 15 of [RFC2616] are also pertinent to CoAP.
This section concentrates on describing limitations specific to CoAP
and CoRE.
10.3.1. Processing URIs
TODO
10.3.2. Proxying and Caching
TODO
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
10.3.3. Attacks on TIDs
TODO
10.3.4. Risk of amplification using multicast
TODO
10.3.5. Asynchronous responses
TODO
11. IANA Considerations
[IANA_TBD_SCHEME] This document suggests the scheme coap:// to
identify this protocol in a URI. The string "coap" should similarly
be used in well-known port and service discovery registrations.
[IANA_TBD_PORT] Apply for a well-known port number in the 0-1023
space as CoAP end-points are usually executed by an operating system
or root process. http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
[IANA_TBD_MIME] A new registry is required for the Internet MIME type
identifier space for CoAP as described in Section 11.2.
11.1. Codes
CoAP makes use of (a subset of) the HTTP status codes defined in
[RFC2616]. The HTTP status code is encoded into an 8-bit unsigned
integer code with the mapping defined in Table 3. The use of these
codes is defined throughout this document using the HTTP Name.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
+------+----------------------------+
| Code | HTTP Name |
+------+----------------------------+
| 40 | 100 Continue |
| 80 | 200 OK |
| 81 | 201 Created |
| 124 | 304 Not Modified |
| 160 | 400 Bad Request |
| 164 | 404 Not Found |
| 165 | 405 Method Not Allowed |
| 175 | 415 Unsupported Media Type |
| 200 | 500 Internal Server Error |
| 202 | 502 Bad Gateway |
| 203 | 503 Service Unavailable |
| 204 | 504 Gateway Timeout |
+------+----------------------------+
Table 3: CoAP Codes
11.2. Content Types
Internet media types are identified by a string in HTTP, such as
"application/xml". This string is made up of a top-level type
"application" and a sub-type "xml" [RFC2046]. In order to minimize
the overhead of using these media types to indicate the type of
message payload, CoAP defines an identifier encoding scheme for a
subset of Internet media types. It is expected that this table of
identifiers will be extensible and maintained by IANA for values of
0-200 [IANA_TBD_MIME].
The Content-type Option is formatted as an 8-bit unsigned integer.
Initial mappings from Internet media types to a suitable identifier
is shown in Table 4. Composite high-level types (multipart and
message) are not supported. Identifier values from 201-255 are
reserved for vendor specific, application specific or experimental
use and are not maintained by IANA.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Internet media type | Identifier |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| text/plain (UTF-8) | 0 |
| text/xml (UTF-8) | 1 |
| text/csv (UTF-8) | 2 |
| text/html (UTF-8) | 3 |
| image/gif | 21 |
| image/jpeg | 22 |
| image/png | 23 |
| image/tiff | 24 |
| audio/raw | 25 |
| video/raw | 26 |
| application/link-format | 40 |
| [draft-shelby-core-link-format] | |
| application/xml | 41 |
| application/octet-stream | 42 |
| application/rdf+xml | 43 |
| application/soap+xml | 44 |
| application/atom+xml | 45 |
| application/xmpp+xml | 46 |
| application/exi | 47 |
| application/x-bxml | 48 |
| application/fastinfoset | 49 |
| application/soap+fastinfoset | 50 |
| application/json | 51 |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
Table 4: Media type identifiers
12. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Carsten Bormann and Klaus Hartke for substantial
contributions to the ideas and text in the document (Section 2.1.1,
Section 2.1.2, Section 2.2, Section 3.2), along with countless
detailed reviews and discussions.
Thanks to Michael Stuber, Richard Kelsey, Cullen Jennings, Guido
Moritz, Peter Van Der Stok, Adriano Pezzuto, Lisa Dussealt, Alexey
Melnikov, Gilbert Clark, Salvatore Loreto, Petri Mutka, Szymon Sasin,
Robert Quattlebaum, Robert Cragie, Angelo Castellani, Tom Herbst, Ed
Beroset, Gilman Tolle, Robby Simpson, Peter Bigot, Colin O'Flynn and
David Ryan for helpful comments and discussions that have shaped the
document.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
13. Changelog
Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02:
o Sending an error on a critical option clarified (#18).
o Clarification on behavior of PUT and idempotent operations
(#19).
o Use of Uri-Authority clarified along with server processing
rules. Uri-Scheme option removed. (#20, #23)
o Resource discovery section removed to a separate CoRE Link
Format draft (#21)
o Initial security section outline added.
Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01:
o New cleaner transaction message model and header (#5)
o Removed subscription while being designed (#1)
o Section 2 re-written (#3)
o Text added about use of short URIs (#4)
o Improved header option scheme (#5, #14)
o Date option removed whiled being designed (#6)
o New text for CoAP default port (#7)
o Completed proxying section (#8)
o Completed resource discovery section (#9)
o Completed HTTP mapping section (#10)
o Several new examples added (#11)
o URI split into 3 options (#12)
o MIME type defined for link-format (#13, #16)
o New text on maximum message size (#15)
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
o Location Option added
Changes from shelby-01 to ietf-00:
o Removed the TCP binding section, left open for the future.
o Fixed a bug in the example.
o Marked current Sub/Notify as (Experimental) while under WG
discussion.
o Fixed maximum datagram size to 1280 for both IPv4 and IPv6 (for
CoAP-CoAP proxying to work).
o Temporarily removed the Magic Byte header as TCP is no longer
included as a binding.
o Removed the Uri-code Option as different URI encoding schemes
are being discussed.
o Changed the rel= field to desc= for resource discovery.
o Changed the maximum message size to 1024 bytes to allow for IP/
UDP headers.
o Made the URI slash optimization and method impotence MUSTs
o Minor editing and bug fixing.
Changes from shelby-00 to shelby-01:
o Unified the message header and added a notify message type.
o Renamed methods with HTTP names and removed the NOTIFY method.
o Added a number of options field to the header.
o Combines the Option Type and Length into an 8-bit field.
o Added the magic byte header.
o Added new Etag option.
o Added new Date option.
o Added new Subscription option.
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
o Completed the HTTP Code - CoAP Code mapping table appendix.
o Completed the Content-type Identifier appendix and tables.
o Added more simplifications for URI support.
o Initial subscription and discovery sections.
o A Flag requirements simplified.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.oflynn-core-bootstrapping]
Sarikaya, B. and R. Cragie, "Initial Configuration of
Resource-Constrained Devices",
draft-oflynn-core-bootstrapping-01 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[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.
[RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control]
Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-eggert-core-congestion-control-00 (work in
progress), June 2010.
[I-D.shelby-6lowapp-encoding]
Shelby, Z., Luimula, M., and D. Peintner, "Efficient XML
Encoding and 6LowApp", draft-shelby-6lowapp-encoding-00
(work in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.shelby-core-coap-req]
Shelby, Z., Stuber, M., Sturek, D., Frank, B., and R.
Kelsey, "CoAP Requirements and Features",
draft-shelby-core-coap-req-01 (work in progress),
April 2010.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Zach Shelby
Sensinode
Kidekuja 2
Vuokatti 88600
FINLAND
Phone: +358407796297
Email: zach@sensinode.com
Brian Frank
SkyFoundry
Richmond, VA
USA
Phone:
Email: brian@skyfoundry.com
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) September 2010
Don Sturek
Pacific Gas & Electric
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA
USA
Phone: +1-619-504-3615
Email: d.sturek@att.net
Shelby, et al. Expires March 31, 2011 [Page 35]
