CORE                                                        M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                              J. Shallow
Expires: February 19, 2021                               August 18, 2020


Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options for
                          Faster Transmission
                      draft-ietf-core-new-block-00

Abstract

   This document specifies new Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
   Block-Wise transfer options: Block3 and Block4 Options.

   These options are similar to the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options, but
   enable faster transmission rates for large amounts of data with less
   packet interchanges as well as supporting faster recovery should any
   of the blocks get lost in transmission.

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 https://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 February 19, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Existing CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  New CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options  . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  New CoAP Response Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Applicability Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The Block3 and Block4 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Properties of Block3 and Block4 Options . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Structure of Block3 and Block4 Options  . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Using the Block3 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Using the Block 4 Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  Working with Observe and Block4 Options . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.6.  Working with Size1 and Size2 Options  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.7.  Use of Block3 and Block4 Options Together . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Caching Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Examples of Selective Block Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Block3 Option: Non-Confirmable Example  . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Block4 Option: Non-Confirmable Example  . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.1.  New CoAP Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.2.  New CoAP Response Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  New Content Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages . . . . . . . . .  19
     A.1.  Block3 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Block4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Existing CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], although
   inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP.  The
   message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable
   delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.  [RFC7959]



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   introduced the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options to handle data records
   that cannot fit in a single IP packet, so not having to rely on IP
   fragmentation and further updated by [RFC8323] for use over TCP, TLS,
   and Websockets.

   The CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options work well in environments where
   there are no or minimal packet losses.  These options operate
   synchronously where each block has to be requested and can only ask
   for (or send) the next block when the request for the previous block
   has completed.  Packet, and hence block transmission rate, is
   controlled by Round Trip Times (RTTs).

   There is a requirement for these blocks of data to be transmitted at
   higher rates under network conditions where there may be transient
   packet loss.  An example is when a network is subject to a
   Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack and there is a need for
   DDoS mitigation agents relying upon CoAP to communicate with each
   other (e.g., [I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]).  As a reminder, [RFC7959]
   recommends use of Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential
   packet loss; which does not work with a flooded pipe DDoS situation.

1.2.  New CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options

   This document introduces the CoAP Block3 and Block4 Options.  These
   options are similar in operation to the CoAP Block1 and Block2
   Options respectively, but enable faster transmissions of sets of
   blocks of data with less packet interchanges as well as supporting
   faster recovery should any of the Blocks get lost in transmission.

   Using Non-confirmable (NON) messages, the faster transmissions occur
   as all the Blocks can be transmitted serially (as are IP fragmented
   packets) without having to wait for an acknowledgement or next
   request from the remote CoAP peer.  Recovery of missing Blocks is
   faster in that multiple missing Blocks can be requested in a single
   CoAP packet.

   Note that the same performance benefits can be applied to Confirmable
   messages if the value of NSTART is increased from 1 (Section 4.7 of
   [RFC7252]).  Some sample examples with Confirmable messages are
   provided in Appendix A.

   There is little, if any, benefit of using these options with CoAP
   running over a reliable connection [RFC8323].  In this case, there is
   no differentiation between Confirmable and NON as they are not used.

   A CoAP endpoint can acknowledge all or a subset of the blocks.
   Concretely, the receiving CoAP endpoint informs the CoAP endpoint
   sender either successful receipt or reports on all blocks in the body



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   that have been not yet been received.  The CoAP endpoint sender will
   then retransmit only the blocks that have been lost in transmission.

   Block3 and Block4 Options are used instead of Block1 and Block2
   Options respectively because the transmission semantics and usage
   have changed.

   The deviations from Block1 and Block2 Options are specified in
   Section 3.  Pointers to appropriate [RFC7959] sections are provided.

   The specification refers to the base CoAP methods defined in
   Section 5.8 of [RFC7252] and the new CoAP methods, FETCH, PATCH, and
   iPATCH introduced in [RFC8132].

1.3.  New CoAP Response Code

   This document defines a new CoAP Response Code (Section 5.9 of
   [RFC7252]), called TBA3 (Missing payloads), to report on payloads
   using the Block3 Option that are not received by the server.

   See Section 4 for more details.

1.4.  Applicability Scope

   The mechanism specified in the document includes guards to prevent a
   CoAP agent from overloading the network by adopting an aggressive
   sending rate.  These guards MUST be followed in addition to the
   existing CoAP congestion control as specified in Section 4.7 of
   [RFC7252].

   This mechanism primarily targets applications such as DDoS Open
   Threat Signaling (DOTS) that can't use Confirmable (CON) responses to
   handle potential packet loss and that support application-specific
   mechanisms to assess whether the remote peer is able to handle the
   messages sent by a CoAP endpoint (e.g., DOTS heartbeats in
   Section 4.7 of [RFC8782]).

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Readers should be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in
   [RFC7252].




Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   The terms "payload" and "body" are defined in [RFC7959].  The term
   "payload" is thus used for the content of a single CoAP message
   (i.e., a single block being transferred), while the term "body" is
   used for the entire resource representation that is being transferred
   in a block-wise fashion.

3.  The Block3 and Block4 Options

3.1.  Properties of Block3 and Block4 Options

   The properties of Block3 and Block4 Options are shown in Table 1.
   The formatting of this table follows the one used in Table 4 of
   [RFC7252] (Section 5.10).  The C, U, N, and R columns indicate the
   properties Critical, Unsafe, NoCacheKey, and Repeatable defined in
   Section 5.4 of [RFC7252].  Only C column is marked for the Block3
   Option.  Only C and R columns are marked for the Block4 Option.

    +--------+---+---+---+---+-----------+--------+--------+---------+
    | Number | C | U | N | R | Name      | Format | Length | Default |
    +========+===+===+===+===+===========+========+========+=========+
    |  TBA1  | x |   |   |   | Block3    | uint   |  0-3   | (none)  |
    |  TBA2  | x |   |   | x | Block4    | uint   |  0-3   | (none)  |
    +--------+---+---+---+---+-----------+--------+--------+---------+

            Table 1: CoAP Block3 and Block4 Option Properties

   The Block3 and Block4 Options can be present in both the request and
   response messages.  The Block3 Option pertains to the request payload
   and the Block4 Option pertains to the response payload.  The Content-
   Format Option applies to the body, not to the payload (i.e., it must
   be the same for all payloads of the same body).

   Block3 is useful with the payload-bearing POST, PUT, PATCH, and
   iPATCH requests and their responses (2.01 and 2.04).  Block4 Option
   is useful with GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH, and iPATCH requests and
   their payload-bearing responses (2.01, 2.03, 2.04, and 2.05)
   (Section 5.5 of [RFC7252]).

   To indicate support for Block4 responses, the CoAP client MUST
   include the Block4 Option in a GET or similar requests so that the
   server knows that the client supports this Block4 functionality
   should it needs to send back a body that spans multiple payloads.
   Otherwise, the server would use the Block2 Option (if supported) to
   send back a message body that is too large to fit into a single IP
   packet [RFC7959].

   If Block3 Option is present in a request or Block4 Option in a
   response (i.e., in that message to the payload of which it pertains),



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   it indicates a block-wise transfer and describes how this specific
   block-wise payload forms part of the entire body being transferred.
   If it is present in the opposite direction, it provides additional
   control on how that payload will be formed or was processed.

   Implementation of Block3 (or Block4) Option is intended to be
   optional.  However, when it is present in a CoAP message, it MUST be
   processed (or the message rejected).  Therefore, Block3 and Block4
   Options are identified as Critical options.

   The Block3 and Block4 Options are safe to forward.  That is, a CoAP
   proxy that does not understand the Block3 (or Block4) Option should
   forward the option on.

   The Block4 Option is repeatable when requesting re-transmission of
   missing Blocks, but not otherwise.  Except that case, any request
   carrying multiple Block3 (or Block4) Options MUST be handled
   following the procedure specified in Section 5.4.5 of [RFC7252].

   PROBING_RATE parameter in CoAP indicates the average data rate that
   must not be exceeded by a CoAP endpoint in sending to a peer endpoint
   that does not respond.  The body of blocks will be subjected to
   PROBING_RATE (Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]).

   The Block3 and Block4 Options, like the Block1 and Block2 Options,
   are both a class E and a class U in terms of OSCORE processing (see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC8613]): The Block3 (or Block4) Option MAY be an
   Inner or Outer option.  The Inner and Outer values are therefore
   independent of each other.  The Inner option is encrypted and
   integrity protected between clients and servers, and provides message
   body identification in case of end-to-end fragmentation of requests.
   The Outer option is visible to proxies and labels message bodies in
   case of hop-by-hop fragmentation of requests.

3.2.  Structure of Block3 and Block4 Options

   The structure of Block3 and Block4 Options follows the structure
   defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC7959].

   There is no default value for the Block3 and Block4 Options.  Absence
   of one of these options is equivalent to an option value of 0 with
   respect to the value of block number (NUM) and more bit (M) that
   could be given in the option, i.e., it indicates that the current
   block is the first and only block of the transfer (block number is
   set to 0, M is unset).  However, in contrast to the explicit value 0,
   which would indicate a size of the block (SZX) of 0, and thus a size
   value of 16 bytes, there is no specific explicit size implied by the
   absence of the option -- the size is left unspecified.  (As for any



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   uint, the explicit value 0 is efficiently indicated by a zero-length
   option; this, therefore, is different in semantics from the absence
   of the option).

3.3.  Using the Block3 Option

   The Block3 Option is used when the client wants to send a large
   amount of data to the server using the POST, PUT, PATCH, or iPATCH
   methods where the data and headers do not fit into a single packet.

   When Block3 Option is used, the client MUST include Request-Tag
   Option [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag].  The Request-Tag value MUST
   be the same for all of the blocks in the body of data that is being
   transferred.  It is also used to identify a particular block that
   needs to be re-transmitted.  The Request-Tag is opaque in nature, but
   it is RECOMMENDED that the client treats it as an unsigned integer of
   8 bytes in length.  An implementation may want to consider limiting
   this to 4 bytes to reduce packet overhead size.  The server still
   treats it as an opaque entity.  The Request-Tag value MUST be
   different for distinct bodies or sets of blocks of data and SHOULD be
   incremented whenever a new body of data is being transmitted for a
   CoAP session between peers.  The initial Request-Tag value SHOULD be
   randomly generated by the client.

   The client sends all the individual payloads of the body using Block3
   and Request-Tag Options, only expecting a response when all the
   payloads have been sent.  It is RECOMMENDED that after transmission
   of every set of MAX_PAYLOADS payloads of a single body, a delay is
   introduced of ACK_TIMEOUT (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) before the
   next set of payload transmissions to manage potential congestion
   issues.  MAX_PAYLOADS should be configurable with a default value of
   10.

      Note: The default value is chosen for reasons similar to those
      discussed in Section 5 of [RFC6928].

   For NON transmissions, it is permissible, but not required, to send
   the ultimate payload of a MAX_PAYLOADS set as a Confirmable packet.
   If a Confirmable packet is used, then the client MUST wait for the
   ACK to be returned before sending the next set of payloads, which can
   be in time terms less than the ACK_TIMEOUT delay.

   Also, for NON transmissions, it is permissible, but not required, to
   send a Confirmable packet for the final payload of a body (that is, M
   bit unset).  If a Confirmable packet is used, then the client MUST
   wait for the 2.01 (Created) or 2.04 (Changed) Response Codes to be
   returned for successful transmission, or TBA3 (Missing Payloads)
   Response Code to then resend the missing blocks (if any).



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   With NON transmission, the server acknowledges receipt of all of the
   payloads that make up the body or can respond at any time during the
   receipt of the payloads to acknowledge that some of the payloads have
   arrived, but others are missing.  It is RECOMMENDED that, unless
   there are receipt issues, the server only responds when the final
   payload (i.e., M bit unset) is received.

   For Confirmable transmission, the server MUST continue to acknowledge
   each packet.  NSTART will also need to be increased from the default
   (1) to get faster transmission rates.

   Tokens MUST be included.  Each individual payload of the body MUST
   have a different Token value.

   A 2.01 (Created) or 2.04 (Changed) Response Code indicates successful
   receipt of the entire body.  The 2.31 (Continue) Response Code MUST
   NOT be used.

   A 4.00 (Bad Request) Response Code MUST be returned if the request
   does not include a Request-Tag Option but does include a Block3
   option.

   A 4.02 (Bad Option) Response Code MUST be returned if the server does
   not support the Block3 Option.

   Use of 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code is discouraged
   when using Block3 Option because packets may arrive out of sequence;
   TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code (Section 4) SHOULD be used
   instead.  However, 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code is
   still valid to reject a Content-Format mismatch.

   A 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) Response Code can be returned under
   similar conditions to those discussed in Section 2.9.3 of [RFC7959].

   A TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code indicates that some of the
   payloads are missing and need to be resent.  The client then re-
   transmits the missing payloads using the Request-Tag and Block3 to
   specify the block number, SZX, and M bit as appropriate.  The
   Request-Tag value to use is determined from the payload of the TBA3
   (Missing Payloads) Response Code.  If the client dos not recognize
   the Request-Tag, the client can ignore this response.  As discussed
   above, the sending of the list of missing blocks is subject to
   MAX_PAYLOADS.

   If the server has not received the final payload (i.e., a block with
   M bit unset), but one or other payloads have been received, it SHOULD
   wait for up to MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) before
   sending the TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code.  However, this



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   timer MAY be reduced to two times ACK_TIMEOUT before sending a TBA3
   (Missing Payloads) Response Code to cover the situation where
   MAX_PAYLOADS has been triggered by the client causing a break in
   transmission.

   In all cases, multiple TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Codes are
   traffic limited by PROBING_RATE.

   If the client transmits a new body of data with a new Request-Tag to
   the same resource on a server, the server MUST remove any partially
   received body held for a previous Request-Tag for that resource.

   If the server receives a duplicate block with the same Request-Tag,
   it SHOULD silently ignore the packet.

   A server SHOULD only maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   up to EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).

3.4.  Using the Block 4 Option

   Support for the receipt of Block4 Option by the client is indicated
   by using the Block4 Option in the GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH or
   iPATCH request.  If the Block4 Option is not included in the request,
   the server MUST NOT send data using the Block4 Option, but can use
   Block2 if supported instead.

   In a request, the Block4 MUST always have the M bit set to 0.

   The payloads sent back from the server as a response MUST all have
   the same ETag (Section 5.10.6 of [RFC7252]) for the same body.  The
   server MUST NOT use the same ETag value for different representations
   of a resource.

   The sending of the payloads is subject to MAX_PAYLOADS.  If
   MAX_PAYLOADS is exceeded, the server MUST introduce an ACK_TIMEOUT
   delay before transmitting the next set of payloads.

   The ETag is opaque in nature, but it is RECOMMENDED that the server
   treats it as an unsigned integer of 8 bytes in length.  An
   implementation may want to consider limiting this to 4 bytes to
   reduce packet overhead size.  The client still treats it as an opaque
   entity.  The ETag value MUST be different for distinct bodies or sets
   of blocks of data and SHOULD be incremented whenever a new body of
   data is being transmitted for a CoAP session between peers.  The
   initial ETag value SHOULD be randomly generated by the server.

   For NON transmission, it is permissible, but not required, to send
   the ultimate payload of a MAX_PAYLOADS set as a Confirmable packet.



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   If a Confirmable packet is used, then the server MUST wait for the
   ACK to be received before sending the next set of payloads, which can
   be in time terms less than the ACK_TIMEOUT delay.

   Also, for NON transmission, it is permissible, but not required, to
   send a Confirmable packet for the final payload of a body (i.e., M
   bit unset).  If a Confirmable packet is used, the server MUST wait
   for the ACK to be returned for successful transmission.

   If the client detects that some of the payloads are missing, the
   missing payloads are requested by issuing a new GET, POST, PUT,
   FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH request that contains one or more Block4
   Options that define the missing blocks.  A new Token value MUST be
   used for this request.  The rate of requests for missing blocks is
   subject to PROBING_RATE.  The ETag Option MUST NOT be used in the
   request as the server could respond with a 2.03 (Valid Response) with
   no payload.  If the server responds with a different ETag Option
   value (as the resource representation has changed), then the client
   SHOULD drop all the payloads for the current body that are no longer
   valid.

   The client may elect to request the missing blocks or just ignore the
   partial body.

   All the payload responses to a specific GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH,
   or iPATCH request MUST have the same Token value as in the request.

   With NON transmission, the client only needs to indicate that some of
   the payloads are missing by issuing a GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH,
   or iPATCH request for the missing blocks.

   For Confirmable transmission, the client SHOULD continue to
   acknowledge each packet as well as issuing a separate GET, POST, PUT,
   FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH for the missing blocks.  NSTART will also
   need to be increased from the default (1) to get faster transmission
   rates.

   If the server transmits a new body of data (e.g., a triggered
   Observe) with a new ETag to the same client with the same Token
   value, the client MUST remove any partially received body held for a
   previous ETag for that Token.

   If the client receives a duplicate block with the same ETag, it
   SHOULD silently ignore the packet.

   A client SHOULD only maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   up to EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) or as defined by
   the Max-Age Option whichever is the less.



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


3.5.  Working with Observe and Block4 Options

   As the blocks of the body are sent without waiting for
   acknowledgement of the individual blocks, the Observe value [RFC7641]
   MUST be the same for all the blocks of the same body.

   Likewise, the Tokens MUST all have the same value for all the blocks
   of the same body.  This is so that if any of the blocks get lost
   during transmission (including the first one), the receiving CoAP
   endpoint can take the appropriate decisions as to how to continue
   (implementation specific).

   If the client requests missing blocks, the client MUST use a
   different Token; all repeated missing blocks for that new request
   MUST use the new Token.

3.6.  Working with Size1 and Size2 Options

   Section 4 of [RFC7959] defines two CoAP options: Size1 for indicating
   the size of the representation transferred in requests and Size2 for
   indicating the size of the representation transferred in responses.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Size1 Option is used with the Block3
   Option.  It is also RECOMMENDED that the Size2 Option is used with
   the Block4 Option.

   If Size1 or Size2 Options are used, they MUST be used in all payloads
   of the body and MUST have the same value.

3.7.  Use of Block3 and Block4 Options Together

   The behavior is similar to the one defined in Section 3.3 of
   [RFC7959] with Block3 substituted for Block1 and Block4 for Block2.

4.  TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code

   TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code is a new client error status
   code (Section 5.9.2 of [RFC7252]) used to indicate that the server
   has not received all of the blocks of the request body that it needs
   to proceed.

   Likely causes are the client has not sent all blocks, some blocks
   were dropped during transmission, or the client has sent them
   sufficiently long ago that the server has already discarded them.

   The data payload of the TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code is
   encoded as a CBOR Sequence [RFC8742].  First is CBOR encoded Request-
   Tag followed by 1 or more missing CBOR encoded missing block numbers.



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   The missing block numbers MUST be unique per TBA3 (Missing Payloads)
   when created by the server; the client SHOULD drop any duplicates in
   the same TBA3 (Missing Payloads) message.

   The Content-Format Option (Section 5.10.3 of [RFC7252]) MUST be used
   in the TBA3 (Missing Payloads) Response Code.  It MUST be set to
   "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" (see Section 8.3).

   The Concise Data Definition Language [RFC8610] for the data
   describing these missing blocks is as follows:

             TBA3-payload = (request-tag, missing-block-list)
             ; A copy of the opaque Request-Tag value
             request-tag = bstr
             missing-block-list = [1 * missing-block-number]
             ; A unique block number not received
             missing-block-number = uint

             Figure 1: Structure of the Missing Blocks Payload

   If the size of the TBA3 (Missing Payloads) response packet is larger
   than that defined by Section 4.6 [RFC7252], then the number of
   missing blocks MUST be limited so that the response can fit into a
   single packet.  If necessary, multiple TBA3 (Missing Payloads)
   Response Codes can be sent back; each covering a Request-Tag and a
   unique set of missing blocks.  The same Token can be used for the
   multiple TBA3 (missing Payloads) if this is the case.

5.  Caching Considerations

   The Block3 and Block4 Options are part of the cache key.  As such, a
   CoAP proxy that does not understand the Block3 and Block4 Options
   must follow the recommendations in Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7252] for
   caching.

   This specification does not require a proxy to obtain the complete
   representation before it serves parts of it to the client.
   Otherwise, the considerations discussed in Section 2.10 of [RFC7959]
   apply for the Block3 and Block4 Options (with Block3 substituted for
   Block1 and Block4 substituted for Block2) for proxies that support
   Block3 and Block4 Options.

   A proxy that supports Block4 Option MUST be prepared to receive a GET
   or similar message indicating one or more missing blocks.  The proxy
   can serve from its cache missing blocks that are available in its
   cache in a set as a server would send all the Block4s.  If one or
   more requested blocks are not available in the cache, the proxy
   SHOULD update the GET request by removing the blocks that it can



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   serve from the cache, and then forward on the request to the next
   hop.

   Alternatively, the original request unmodified (from the missing
   block perspective) MAY be forwarded on to the server.  All the
   responses are then passed back to the client with the cache getting
   updated.

   How long a CoAP endpoint (or proxy) keeps the body in its cache is
   implementation specific (e.g., it may be based on Max-Age).

6.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations

   As a reminder, the basic normative requirements on HTTP/CoAP mappings
   are defined in Section 10 of [RFC7252].  The implementation
   guidelines for HTTP/CoAP mappings are elaborated in [RFC8075].

   The rules defined in Section 5 of [RFC7959] are to be followed.

7.  Examples of Selective Block Recovery

   This section provides some sample flows to illustrate the use of
   Block3 and Block4 Options.  Figure 2 lists the conventions that are
   used in the following subsections.

      T: Token value
      O: Observe Option value
      M: Message ID
     RT: Request-Tag
     ET: ETag
     B3: Block3 Option values NUM/More/SZX
     B4: Block3 Option values NUM/More/SZX
      \: Trimming long lines
   [[]]: Comments
   -->X: Message loss
   X<--: Message loss


                  Figure 2: Notations Used in the Figures

7.1.  Block3 Option: Non-Confirmable Example

   Figure 3 depicts an example of a NON PUT request conveying Block3
   Option.  All the blocks are received by the server.







Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 RT=10 B3:0/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 RT=10 B3:1/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 RT=10 B3:2/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 RT=10 B3:3/0/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0xf1 T:0xf3
                ...

    Figure 3: Example of NON Request with Block3 Option (Without Loss)

   Consider now a scenario where a new body of data is to be sent by the
   client, but some blocks are dropped in transmission as illustrated in
   Figure 4.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x05 T:0xe0 RT=11 B3:0/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xe1 RT=11 B3:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xe2 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x08 T:0xe3 RT=11 B3:3/0/1024
            |          |
                ...

      Figure 4: Example of NON Request with Block3 Option (With Loss)

   The server realizes that some blocks are missing and asks for the
   missing ones in one go (Figure 5).  It does so by indicating which
   blocks have been received in the data portion of the response.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
                ...
            |<---------+ NON TBA3 M:0xf2 T:0xe3 [Missing 1,2 for RT=11]
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x09 T:0xe4 RT=11 B3:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x0a T:0xe5 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            |          |
            |<---------+ NON TBA3 M:0xf3 T:0xe4 [Missing 2 for RT=11]
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x0b T:0xe6 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0xf4 T:0xe6
            |          |
                ...

   Figure 5: Example of NON Request with Block3 Option (Blocks Recovery)




Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   Under high levels of traffic loss, the client can elect not to retry
   sending missing blocks of data.  This decision is implementation
   specific.

7.2.  Block4 Option: Non-Confirmable Example

   Figure 6 illustrates the example of Block4 Option.  The client sends
   a NON GET carrying an Observe and a Block4 Options.  The Block4
   Option indicates a size hint (1024 bytes).  This request is replied
   by the server using four (4) blocks that are transmitted to the
   client without any loss.  Each of these blocks carries a Block4
   Option.  The same process is repeated when an Observe is triggered,
   but no loss is experienced by any of the notification blocks.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 B4:0/0/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf1 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:0/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf2 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:1/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf3 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf4 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:3/0/1024
                 ...
              [[Observe triggered]]
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf5 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:0/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf6 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:1/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf7 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf8 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:3/0/1024
                ...


    Figure 6: Example of NON Notifications with Block4 Option (Without
                                   Loss)

   Figure 7 shows the example of an Observe that is triggered but for
   which some notification blocks are lost.  The client detects the
   missing blocks and request their retransmission.  It does so by
   indicating the blocks that were successfully received.













Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
                ...
               [[Observe triggered]]
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:0/1/1024
            |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfa T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:1/1/1024
            |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfb T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xfc T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:3/0/1024
            |          |
         [[Client realizes blocks are missing and asks for the missing
           ones in one go]]
            +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 B4:1/0/1024\
            |          |                             B4:2/0/1024
            |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfd T:0xf1 ET=23 B4:1/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xfe T:0xf1 ET=23 B4:2/1/1024
            |          |
         [[Get the final missing block]]
            +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 B4:1/0/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xff T:0xf2 ET=23 B4:1/1/1024
                ...

     Figure 7: Example of NON Notifications with Block4 Option (Blocks
                                 Recovery)

   Under high levels of traffic loss, the client can elect not to retry
   getting missing blocks of data.  This decision is implementation
   specific.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  New CoAP Options

   IANA is requested to add the following entries to the "CoAP Option
   Numbers" sub-registry available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/
   core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#option-numbers:

              +--------+------------------+-----------+
              | Number | Name             | Reference |
              +========+==================+===========+
              |  TBA1  | Block3           | [RFCXXXX] |
              |  TBA2  | Block4           | [RFCXXXX] |
              +--------+------------------+-----------+

              Table 2: CoAP Block3 and Block4 Option Numbers

   This document suggests 21 (TBA1) and 25 (TBA2) as a values to be
   assigned for the new option numbers.



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


8.2.  New CoAP Response Code

   IANA is requested to add the following entry to the "CoAP Response
   Codes" sub-registry available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/
   core-parameters/core-parameters.xhtml#response-codes:

                  +------+------------------+-----------+
                  | Code | Description      | Reference |
                  +======+==================+===========+
                  | TBA3 | Missing Payloads | [RFCXXXX] |
                  +------+------------------+-----------+

                  Table 3: New CoAP Response Code

   This document suggests 4.19 (TBA3) as a value to be assigned for the
   new Response Code.

8.3.  New Content Format

   This document requests IANA to register the CoAP Content-Format ID
   for the "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" media type in the "CoAP
   Content-Formats" registry available at
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-
   parameters.xhtml#content-formats:

   o  Media Type: application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq
   o  Encoding: -
   o  Id: TBD4
   o  Reference: [RFCXXXX]

9.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7959] should be
   taken into account.

   Security considerations related to the use of Request-Tag are
   discussed in Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag].

10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Achim Kraus and Jim Schaad for the comments on the mailing
   list.

   Special thanks to Christian Amsuess and Carsten Bormann for their
   suggestions and several reviews, which improved this specification
   significantly.

   Some text from [RFC7959] is reused for readers convenience.



Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]
              Amsuess, C., Mattsson, J., and G. Selander, "CoAP: Echo,
              Request-Tag, and Token Processing", draft-ietf-core-echo-
              request-tag-10 (work in progress), July 2020.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.

   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8075]  Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
              E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8132>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.








Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   [RFC8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.

   [RFC8742]  Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]
              Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., Doron, E., chenmeiling, c.,
              and J. Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
              Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry", draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-11
              (work in progress), July 2020.

   [RFC6928]  Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
              "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8782]  Reddy.K, T., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Patil, P.,
              Mortensen, A., and N. Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-
              Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel
              Specification", RFC 8782, DOI 10.17487/RFC8782, May 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8782>.

Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages

   These examples assume NSTART has been increased to at least 4.

   The notations provided in Figure 2 are used in the following
   subsections.





Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


A.1.  Block3 Option

   Let's now consider the use Block3 Option with a CON request as shown
   in Figure 8.  All the blocks are acknowledged (ACK).

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 RT=10 B3:0/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 RT=10 B3:1/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 RT=10 B3:2/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 RT=10 B3:3/0/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x01
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x02
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x03
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x04


    Figure 8: Example of CON Request with Block3 Option (Without Loss)

   Now, suppose that a new body of data is to sent but with some blocks
   dropped in transmission as illustrated in Figure 9.  The client will
   retry sending blocks for which no ACK was received.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x05 T:0xf4 RT=11 B3:0/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 B3:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x08 T:0xf7 RT=11 B3:3/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x05
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x08
            |          |
          [[The client retries sending packets not acknowledged]]
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 B3:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x06
            |          |
          [[The client retransmits messages not acknowledged
           (exponential backoff)]]
            +--->?     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 B3:2/1/1024
            |          |
          [[Either transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
            or successfully transmitted.]]

   Figure 9: Example of CON Request with Block3 Option (Blocks Recovery)




Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


   It is implementation dependent as to whether a CoAP session is
   terminated following acknowledge retry timeout, or whether the CoAP
   session continues to be used under such adverse traffic conditions.

   If there is likely to be the possibility of network transient losses,
   then the use of Non-confirmable traffic should be considered.

A.2.  Block4 Option

   An example of the use of Block4 Option with Confirmable messages is
   shown in Figure 10.








































Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| CON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 B4:0/0/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:0/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe1 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:1/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe2 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe3 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 B4:3/0/1024
                ...
                    [[Observe triggered]]
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe4 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:0/1/1024
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe5 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:1/1/1024
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe6 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe7 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 B4:3/0/1024
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe4
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe5
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe6
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe7
                 ...
                    [[Observe triggered]]
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe8 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:0/1/1024
            |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:1/1/1024
            |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xeb T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:3/0/1024
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe8
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xeb
            |          |
                    [[Server retransmits messages not acknowledged]]
            |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:1/1/1024
            |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:2/1/1024
            |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe9
            |          |
                    [[Server retransmits messages not acknowledged
                     (exponential backoff)]]
            |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 B4:2/1/1024
            |          |
              [[Either transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
                or successfully transmitted.]]

        Figure 10: Example of CON Notifications with Block4 Option

   It is implementation-dependent as to whether a CoAP session is
   terminated following acknowledge retry timeout, or whether the CoAP
   session continues to be used under such adverse traffic conditions.

   If there is likely to be the possibility of network transient losses,
   then the use of Non-confirmable traffic should be considered.





Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       New Block-Wise Transfer Options         August 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Jon Shallow
   United Kingdom

   Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com





































Boucadair & Shallow     Expires February 19, 2021              [Page 23]