CoRE Z. Shelby
Internet-Draft ARM
Intended status: Standards Track M. Koster
Expires: January 4, 2018 SmartThings
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
P. van der Stok
consultant
C. Amsuess, Ed.
Energy Harvesting Solutions
July 03, 2017
CoRE Resource Directory
draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-11
Abstract
In many M2M applications, direct discovery of resources is not
practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where
multicast traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by
employing an entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which hosts
descriptions of resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to
be performed for those resources. This document specifies the web
interfaces that a Resource Directory supports in order for web
servers to discover the RD and to register, maintain, lookup and
remove resource descriptions. Furthermore, new link attributes
useful in conjunction with an RD are defined.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Architecture and Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Use Case: Cellular M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Use Case: Home and Building Automation . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Use Case: Link Catalogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Finding a Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO) . . . . . . . . 10
5. Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Content Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. URI Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.1. Simple Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3.2. Simple publishing to Resource Directory Server . . . 18
5.3.3. Third-party registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.4. Plurality of link references in a Registration . . . 19
5.4. Operations on the Registration Resource . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4.1. Registration Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.2. Registration Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.3. Read Endpoint Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.4. Update Endpoint Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. RD Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1. Register a Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Group Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. RD Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.1. Endpoint Identification and Authentication . . . . . . . 36
8.2. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.3. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.1. Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.2. IPv6 ND Resource Directory Address Option . . . . . . . . 37
9.3. RD Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.1. Lighting Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.1.1. Installation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.1.2. RD entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.2. OMA Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) Example . . . . . . . . . . 43
10.2.1. The LWM2M Object Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10.2.2. LWM2M Register Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10.2.3. LWM2M Update Endpoint Registration . . . . . . . . . 46
10.2.4. LWM2M De-Register Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Introduction
The work on Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) 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). CoRE is aimed at machine-to-machine (M2M)
applications such as smart energy and building automation.
The discovery of resources offered by a constrained server is very
important in machine-to-machine applications where there are no
humans in the loop and static interfaces result in fragility. The
discovery of resources provided by an HTTP Web Server is typically
called Web Linking [RFC5988]. The use of Web Linking for the
description and discovery of resources hosted by constrained web
servers is specified by the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]. However,
[RFC6690] only describes how to discover resources from the web
server that hosts them by requesting "/.well-known/core". In many
M2M scenarios, direct discovery of resources is not practical due to
sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where multicast
traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by employing an
entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which hosts descriptions of
resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be performed for
those resources.
This document specifies the web interfaces that a Resource Directory
supports in order for web servers to discover the RD and to register,
maintain, lookup and remove resource descriptions. Furthermore, new
link attributes useful in conjunction with a Resource Directory are
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
defined. Although the examples in this document show the use of
these interfaces with CoAP [RFC7252], they can be applied in an
equivalent manner to HTTP [RFC7230].
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
[RFC2119]. The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a
synonym for "octet".
This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms
and concepts that are discussed in [RFC5988] and [RFC6690]. Readers
should also be familiar with the terms and concepts discussed in
[RFC7252]. To describe the REST interfaces defined in this
specification, the URI Template format is used [RFC6570].
This specification makes use of the following additional terminology:
Resource Directory
A web entity that stores information about web resources and
implements the REST interfaces defined in this specification for
registration and lookup of those resources.
Domain
In the context of a Resource Directory, a domain is a logical
grouping of endpoints. This specification assumes that the list
of Domains supported by an RD is pre-configured by that RD. When
a domain is exported to DNS, the domain value equates to the DNS
domain name.
Group
In the context of a Resource Directory, a group is a logical
grouping of endpoints for the purpose of group communications.
All groups within a domain are unique.
Endpoint
Endpoint (EP) is a term used to describe a web server or client in
[RFC7252]. In the context of this specification an endpoint is
used to describe a web server that registers resources to the
Resource Directory. An endpoint is identified by its endpoint
name, which is included during registration, and is unique within
the associated domain of the registration.
Context
When registering links to a Resource Directory, the Context refers
to the scheme, address, port, and base path for all the links
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
registered on behalf of an endpoint, of the general form
scheme://host:port/path/ where the client may explicitly set the
scheme and host, and may supply the port and path as optional
parameters. When the context of a registration is explicitly set,
the URI resolution rules in [RFC3986] MUST be applied.
Commissioning Tool
Commissioning Tool (CT) is a device that assists during the
installation of the network by assigning values to parameters,
naming endpoints and groups, or adapting the installation to the
needs of the applications.
RDAO
Resource Directory Address Option.
3. Architecture and Use Cases
3.1. Principles
The Resource Directory is primarily a tool to make discovery
operations more efficient than querying /.well-known/core on all
connected device, or across boundaries that would be limiting those
operations.
It provides a cache (in the high-level sense, not as defined in
[RFC7252]/[RFC2616]) of data that could otherwise only be obtained by
directly querying the /.well-known/core resource on the target
device, or by accessing those resources with a multicast request.
From that, it follows that no information should be stored in the
resource directory that cannot be discovered from querying the
described device's /.well-known/core resource directly.
It also follows that data in the resource directory can only be
provided by the device whose descriptions are cached or a dedicated
Commissioning Tool (CT). These CTs are thought to act on behalf
agents too constrained, or generally unable, to present that
information themselves. No other client can modify data in the
resource directory or even expect those changes to propagate back to
its source.
3.2. Architecture
The resource directory architecture is illustrated in Figure 1. A
Resource Directory (RD) is used as a repository for Web Links
[RFC5988] about resources hosted on other web servers, which are
called endpoints (EP). An endpoint is a web server associated with a
scheme, IP address and port (called Context), thus a physical node
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
may host one or more endpoints. The RD implements a set of REST
interfaces for endpoints to register and maintain sets of Web Links
(called resource directory registration entries), and for clients to
lookup resources from the RD or maintain groups. Endpoints
themselves can also act as clients. An RD can be logically segmented
by the use of Domains. The domain an endpoint is associated with can
be defined by the RD or configured by an outside entity. This
information hierarchy is shown in Figure 2.
A mechanism to discover an RD using CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] is
defined.
Endpoints proactively register and maintain resource directory
registration entries on the RD, which are soft state and need to be
periodically refreshed.
An endpoint is provided with interfaces to register, update and
remove a resource directory registration entry. It is also possible
for an RD to fetch Web Links from endpoints and add them as resource
directory entries.
At the first registration of a set of entries, a "registration
resource" is created, the location of which is returned to the
registering endpoint. The registering endpoint uses this
registration resource to manage the contents of the registration
entry.
A lookup interface for discovering any of the Web Links held in the
RD is provided using the CoRE Link Format.
Registration Lookup, Group
Interface Interfaces
+----+ | |
| EP |---- | |
+----+ ---- | |
--|- +------+ |
+----+ | ----| | | +--------+
| EP | ---------|-----| RD |----|-----| Client |
+----+ | ----| | | +--------+
--|- +------+ |
+----+ ---- | |
| EP |---- | |
+----+
Figure 1: The resource directory architecture.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
+------------+
| Domain | <-- Name
+------------+
| |
| +------------+
| | Group | <-- Name, Scheme, IP, Port
| +------------+
| |
+------------+
| Endpoint | <-- Name, Scheme, IP, Port
+------------+
|
|
+------------+
| Resource | <-- Target, Parameters
+------------+
Figure 2: The resource directory information hierarchy.
3.3. Use Case: Cellular M2M
Over the last few years, mobile operators around the world have
focused on development of M2M solutions in order to expand the
business to the new type of users: machines. The machines are
connected directly to a mobile network using an appropriate embedded
air interface (GSM/GPRS, WCDMA, LTE) or via a gateway providing short
and wide range wireless interfaces. From the system design point of
view, the ambition is to design horizontal solutions that can enable
utilization of machines in different applications depending on their
current availability and capabilities as well as application
requirements, thus avoiding silo like solutions. One of the crucial
enablers of such design is the ability to discover resources
(machines -- endpoints) capable of providing required information at
a given time or acting on instructions from the end users.
In a typical scenario, during a boot-up procedure (and periodically
afterwards), the machines (endpoints) register with a Resource
Directory (for example EPs installed on vehicles enabling tracking of
their position for fleet management purposes and monitoring
environment parameters) hosted by the mobile operator or somewhere
else in the network, periodically a description of its own
capabilities. Due to the usual network configuration of mobile
networks, the EPs attached to the mobile network may not always be
efficiently reachable. Therefore, a remote server is usually used to
provide proxy access to the EPs. The address of each (proxy)
endpoint on this server is included in the resource description
stored in the RD. The users, for example mobile applications for
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
environment monitoring, contact the RD, look up the endpoints capable
of providing information about the environment using appropriate set
of link parameters, obtain information on how to contact them (URLs
of the proxy server) and then initiate interaction to obtain
information that is finally processed, displayed on the screen and
usually stored in a database. Similarly, fleet management systems
provide the appropriate link parameters to the RD to look up for EPs
deployed on the vehicles the application is responsible for.
3.4. Use Case: Home and Building Automation
Home and commercial building automation systems can benefit from the
use of M2M web services. The discovery requirements of these
applications are demanding. Home automation usually relies on run-
time discovery to commission the system, whereas in building
automation a combination of professional commissioning and run-time
discovery is used. Both home and building automation involve peer-
to-peer interactions between endpoints, and involve battery-powered
sleeping devices.
3.5. Use Case: Link Catalogues
Resources may be shared through data brokers that have no knowledge
beforehand of who is going to consume the data. Resource Directory
can be used to hold links about resources and services hosted
anywhere to make them discoverable by a general class of
applications.
For example, environmental and weather sensors that generate data for
public consumption may provide the data to an intermediary server, or
broker. Sensor data are published to the intermediary upon changes
or at regular intervals. Descriptions of the sensors that resolve to
links to sensor data may be published to a Resource Directory.
Applications wishing to consume the data can use RD Lookup to
discover and resolve links to the desired resources and endpoints.
The Resource Directory service need not be coupled with the data
intermediary service. Mapping of Resource Directories to data
intermediaries may be many-to-many.
Metadata in web link formats like [RFC6690] are supplied by Resource
Directories, which may be internally stored as triples, or relation/
attribute pairs providing metadata about resource links. External
catalogs that are represented in other formats may be converted to
common web linking formats for storage and access by Resource
Directories. Since it is common practice for these to be URN
encoded, simple and lossless structural transforms should generally
be sufficient to store external metadata in Resource Directories.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The additional features of Resource Directory allow domains to be
defined to enable access to a particular set of resources from
particular applications. This provides isolation and protection of
sensitive data when needed. Resource groups may defined to allow
batched reads from multiple resources.
4. Finding a Resource Directory
Several mechanisms can be employed for discovering the RD, including
assuming a default location (e.g. on an Edge Router in a LoWPAN),
assigning an anycast address to the RD, using DHCP, or discovering
the RD using .well-known/core and hyperlinks as specified in CoRE
Link Format [RFC6690]. Endpoints that want to contact a Resource
Directory can obtain candidate IP addresses for such servers in a
number of ways.
In a 6LoWPAN, good candidates can be taken from:
o specific static configuration (e.g., anycast addresses), if any,
o the ABRO option of 6LoWPAN-ND [RFC6775],
o other ND options that happen to point to servers (such as RDNSS),
o DHCPv6 options that might be defined later.
o The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Resource Directory Address Option
described in Section 4.1
In networks with more inexpensive use of multicast, the candidate IP
address may be a well-known multicast address, i.e. directory servers
are found by simply sending GET requests to that well-known multicast
address (see Section 5.2).
Constrained nodes configured in large batches may be configured for
an anycast address for the RD. Each target network environment in
which some of these preconfigured nodes are to be brought up is then
configured with a route for this anycast address that leads to an RD
that is appropriate for the environment.
As some of these sources are just (more or less educated) guesses,
endpoints MUST make use of any error messages to very strictly rate-
limit requests to candidate IP addresses that don't work out. For
example, an ICMP Destination Unreachable message (and, in particular,
the port unreachable code for this message) may indicate the lack of
a CoAP server on the candidate host, or a CoAP error response code
such as 4.05 "Method Not Allowed" may indicate unwillingness of a
CoAP server to act as a directory server.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
4.1. Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO)
The Resource Directory Option (RDAO) using IPv6 neighbor Discovery
(ND) carries information about the address of the Resource Directory
(RD). This information is needed when endpoints cannot discover the
Resource Directory with link-local multicast address because the
endpoint and the RD are separated by a border Router (6LBR). In many
circumstances the availability of DHCP cannot be guaranteed either
during commissioning of the network. The presence and the use of the
RD is essential during commissioning.
It is possible to send multiple RDAO options in one message,
indicating as many resource directory addresses.
The lifetime 0x0 means that the RD address is invalid and to be
removed.
The RDAO format is:
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 3 | Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ RD Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fields:
Type: 38
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of
the option in units of 8 bytes.
Always 3.
Valid Lifetime: 16-bit unsigned integer. The length of
time in units of 60 seconds (relative to
the time the packet is received) that
this Resource Directory address is valid.
A value of all zero bits (0x0) indicates
that this Resource Directory address
is not valid anymore.
Reserved: This field is unused. It MUST be
initialized to zero by the sender and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
RD Address: IPv6 address of the RD.
Figure 3: Resource Directory Address Option
5. Resource Directory
This section defines the required set of REST interfaces between a
Resource Directory (RD) and endpoints. Although the examples
throughout this section assume the use of CoAP [RFC7252], these REST
interfaces can also be realized using HTTP [RFC7230]. In all
definitions in this section, both CoAP response codes (with dot
notation) and HTTP response codes (without dot notation) are shown.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
An RD implementing this specification MUST support the discovery,
registration, update, lookup, and removal interfaces defined in this
section.
5.1. Content Formats
Resource Directory implementations using this specification MUST
support the application/link-format content format (ct=40).
Resource Directories implementing this specification MAY support
additional content formats.
Any additional content format supported by a Resource Directory
implementing this specification MUST have an equivalent serialization
in the application/link-format content format.
5.2. URI Discovery
Before an endpoint can make use of an RD, it must first know the RD's
address and port, and the URI path information for its REST APIs.
This section defines discovery of the RD and its URIs using the well-
known interface of the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]. It is however
expected that RDs will also be discoverable via other methods
depending on the deployment.
Discovery of the RD registration URI path is performed by sending
either a multicast or unicast GET request to "/.well-known/core" and
including a Resource Type (rt) parameter [RFC6690] with the value
"core.rd" in the query string. Likewise, a Resource Type parameter
value of "core.rd-lookup*" is used to discover the URIs for RD Lookup
operations, and "core.gp" is used to discover the URI path for RD
Group operations. Upon success, the response will contain a payload
with a link format entry for each RD function discovered, indicating
the URI path of the RD function returned and the corresponding
Resource Type. When performing multicast discovery, the multicast IP
address used will depend on the scope required and the multicast
capabilities of the network.
A Resource Directory MAY provide hints about the content-formats it
supports in the links it exposes or registers, using the "ct" link
attribute, as shown in the example below. Clients MAY use these
hints to select alternate content-formats for interaction with the
Resource Directory.
HTTP does not support multicast and consequently only unicast
discovery can be supported using HTTP. Links to Resource Directories
MAY be registered in other Resource Directories, and well-known entry
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
points SHOULD be provided to enable the bootstrapping of unicast
discovery.
An RD implementation of this specification MUST support query
filtering for the rt parameter as defined in [RFC6690].
The discovery request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: GET
URI Template: /.well-known/core{?rt}
URI Template Variables:
rt := Resource Type (optional). MAY contain one of the values
"core.rd", "core.rd-lookup*", "core.rd-lookup-d", "core.rd-
lookup-res", "core.rd-lookup-ep", "core.rd-lookup-gp",
"core.rd-group" or "core.rd*"
Content-Format: application/link-format (if any)
Content-Format: application/link-format+json (if any)
Content-Format: application/link-format+cbor (if any)
The following response codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.05 "Content" or 200 "OK" with an application/link-format,
application/link-format+json, or application/link-format+cbor
payload containing one or more matching entries for the RD
resource.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found" is returned in case no
matching entry is found for a unicast request.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request" is returned in case
of a malformed request for a unicast request.
Failure: No error response to a multicast request.
HTTP support : YES (Unicast only)
The following example shows an endpoint discovering an RD using this
interface, thus learning that the RD registration resource is, in
this example, at /rd, and that the content-format delivered by the
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
server hosting the resource is application/link-format (ct=40). Note
that it is up to the RD to choose its RD resource paths.
Req: GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*
Res: 2.05 Content
</rd>;rt="core.rd";ct=40,
</rd-lookup/ep>;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct=40,
</rd-lookup/res>;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct=40,
</rd-lookup/gp>;rt="core.rd-lookup-gp";ct=40,
</rd-lookup/d>;rt="core.rd-lookup-d";ct=40,
</rd-group>;rt="core.rd-group";ct=40
Figure 4: Example discovery exchange
The following example shows the way of indicating that a client may
request alternate content-formats. The Content-Format code attribute
"ct" MAY include a space-separated sequence of Content-Format codes
as specified in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC7252], indicating that multiple
content-formats are available. The example below shows the required
Content-Format 40 (application/link-format) indicated as well as a
more application-specific content format (picked as 65225 in this
example; this is in the experimental space, not an assigned value).
The RD resource paths /rd, /rd-lookup, and /rd-group are example
values. This server only implements some of the interfaces described
in this document.
Req: GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*
Res: 2.05 Content
</rd>;rt="core.rd";ct="40 65225",
</rd-lookup/res>;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct="40 65225",
</rd-lookup/ep>;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct="40 65225",
</rd-group>;rt="core.rd-group";ct="40 65225"
5.3. Registration
After discovering the location of an RD, an endpoint MAY register its
resources using the registration interface. This interface accepts a
POST from an endpoint containing the list of resources to be added to
the directory as the message payload in the CoRE Link Format
[RFC6690], JSON CoRE Link Format (application/link-format+json), or
CBOR CoRE Link Format (application/link-format+cbor)
[I-D.ietf-core-links-json], along with query parameters indicating
the name of the endpoint, and optionally its domain and the lifetime
of the registration. It is expected that other specifications will
define further parameters (see Section 9.3). The RD then creates a
new registration resource in the RD and returns its location. An
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
endpoint MUST use that location when refreshing registrations using
this interface. Endpoint resources in the RD are kept active for the
period indicated by the lifetime parameter. The endpoint is
responsible for refreshing the entry within this period using either
the registration or update interface. The registration interface
MUST be implemented to be idempotent, so that registering twice with
the same endpoint parameters ep and d does not create multiple RD
entries. A new registration may be created at any time to supersede
an existing registration, replacing the registration parameters and
links.
The registration request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: POST
URI Template: {+rd}{?ep,d,et,lt,con}
URI Template Variables:
rd := RD registration URI (mandatory). This is the location of
the RD, as obtained from discovery.
ep := Endpoint name (mandatory). The endpoint name is an
identifier that MUST be unique within a domain. The maximum
length of this parameter is 63 bytes.
d := Domain (optional). The domain to which this endpoint
belongs. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes.
When this parameter is elided, the RD MAY associate the
endpoint with a configured default domain.
et := Endpoint Type (optional). The semantic type of the
endpoint. This parameter SHOULD be less than 63 bytes.
lt := Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in
seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included
in the initial registration, a default value of 86400 (24
hours) SHOULD be assumed. If the lt parameter is not included
in a registration refresh or update operation, the most
recently supplied value SHALL be re-used.
con := Context (optional). This parameter sets the scheme,
address, port and path at which this server is available in the
form scheme://host:port/path. In the absence of this parameter
the scheme of the protocol, source address and source port of
the register request are assumed. This parameter is mandatory
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
when the directory is filled by a third party such as an
commissioning tool. When con is used, scheme and host are
mandatory and port and path parameters are optional. If the
endpoint uses an ephemeral port to register with, it MUST
include the con: parameter in the registration to provide a
valid network path. If the endpoint which is located behind a
NAT gateway is registering with a Resource Directory which is
on the network service side of the NAT gateway, the endpoint
MUST use a persistent port for the outgoing registration in
order to provide the NAT gateway with a valid network address
for replies and incoming requests.
Content-Format: application/link-format
Content-Format: application/link-format+json
Content-Format: application/link-format+cbor
The following response codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.01 "Created" or 201 "Created". The Location header
option MUST be included in the response when a new registration
resource is created. This Location MUST be a stable identifier
generated by the RD as it is used for all subsequent operations on
this registration resource. The registration resource location
thus returned is for the purpose of updating the lifetime of the
registration and for maintaining the content of the registered
links, including updating and deleting links.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.09 "Conflict" or 409 "Conflict". Attempt to update the
registration content with links resulting in plurality of
references; see Section 5.3.4.
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following example shows an endpoint with the name "node1"
registering two resources to an RD using this interface. The
location "/rd" is an example RD location discovered in a request
similar to Figure 4.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd?ep=node1
Content-Format: 40
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor"
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd/4521
A Resource Directory may optionally support HTTP. Here is an example
of the same registration operation above, when done using HTTP.
Req: POST /rd?ep=node1&con=http://[2001:db8::1:1] HTTP/1.1
Host : example.com
Content-Type: application/link-format
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor"
Res: 201 Created
Location: /rd/4521
5.3.1. Simple Registration
Not all endpoints hosting resources are expected to know how to
upload links to a RD as described in Section 5.3. Instead, simple
endpoints can implement the Simple Registration approach described in
this section. An RD implementing this specification MUST implement
Simple Registration. However, there may be security reasons why this
form of directory discovery would be disabled.
This approach requires that the endpoint makes available the hosted
resources that it wants to be discovered, as links on its "/.well-
known/core" interface as specified in [RFC6690].
The endpoint then finds one or more addresses of the directory server
as described in Section 4.
An endpoint can send (a selection of) hosted resources to a directory
server for publication as described in Section 5.3.2.
The directory server integrates the information it received this way
into its resource directory. It MAY make the information available
to further directories, if it can ensure that a loop does not form.
The protocol used between directories to ensure loop-free operation
is outside the scope of this document.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
5.3.2. Simple publishing to Resource Directory Server
An endpoint that wants to make itself discoverable occasionally sends
a POST request to the "/.well-known/core" URI of any candidate
directory server that it finds. The body of the POST request is
empty, which triggers the resource directory server to perform GET
requests at the requesting server's default discovery URI to obtain
the link-format payload to register.
The endpoint MUST include the endpoint name and MAY include the
registration parameters d, lt, and et, in the POST request as per
Section 5.3.
The following example shows an endpoint using simple publishing, by
simply sending an empty POST to a resource directory.
Req:(to RD server from [ff02::1])
POST coap://rd.example.com/.well-known/core?lt=6000;ep=node1
Content-Format: 40
payload:
(empty payload)
Res: 2.04 Changed
(later)
Req: (from RD server to [ff02::1])
GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core
Accept: 40
Res: 2.05 Content
payload:
</sen/temp>
5.3.3. Third-party registration
For some applications, even Simple Registration may be too taxing for
certain very constrained devices, in particular if the security
requirements become too onerous.
In a controlled environment (e.g. building control), the Resource
Directory can be filled by a third device, called a commissioning
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
tool. The commissioning tool can fill the Resource Directory from a
database or other means. For that purpose the scheme, IP address and
port of the registered device is indicated in the Context parameter
of the registration described in Section 5.3.
5.3.4. Plurality of link references in a Registration
Plurality of link references within a Registration (registration
resource) is an indication of some error condition and should not be
allowed.
Plurality of link references exists if, and only if, two or more
links in a Registration contain identical context, target, and
relation values. This condition would be likely to arise if there
were multiple co-ordinators or configuration tools, each with a
different set of configuration values for the same resource.
A Resource Directory SHOULD reject a registration, or an operation on
a registration, which would result in a plurality of link references
within the the context of the registration. There is no requirement
in this document for a resource directory to check for plurality of
reference between different registrations. Resource Directory
operations which are rejected due to reference plurality SHOULD be
returned the "Conflict" code, indicating that there is someting wrong
with the request.
5.4. Operations on the Registration Resource
After the initial registration, an endpoint should retain the
returned location of the Registration Resource for further
operations, including refreshing the registration in order to extend
the lifetime and "keep-alive" the registration. If the lifetime of
the registration expires, the RD SHOULD NOT respond to discovery
queries with information from the endpoint. The RD SHOULD continue
to provide access to the Registration Resource after a registration
time-out occurs in order to enable the registering endpoint to
eventually refresh the registration. The RD MAY eventually remove
the registration resource for the purpose of resource recovery and
garbage collection. If the Registration Resource is removed, the
endpoint will need to re-register.
The Registration Resource may also be used to inspect the
registration resource using GET, update the registration link
contents using PATCH (as introduced in [RFC8132]), or cancel the
registration using DELETE.
These operations are described in this section.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
In accordance with Section 5.3.4, operations which would result in
plural link references within the context of a registration resource
SHOULD be rejected using the "Conflict" result code.
5.4.1. Registration Update
The update interface is used by an endpoint to refresh or update its
registration with an RD. To use the interface, the endpoint sends a
POST request to the registration resource returned in the Location
header option in the response returned from the intial registration
operation.
An update MAY update the lifetime or context registration parameters
"lt", "con" as in Section 5.3 ) if the previous settings are to be
retained. Parameters that are not being changed changed SHOULD NOT
be included in an update. Adding parameters that have not changed
increases the size of the message but does not have any other
implications. Parameters MUST be included as query parameters in an
update operation as in Section 5.3.
Upon receiving an update request, an RD MUST reset the timeout for
that endpoint and update the scheme, IP address and port of the
endpoint, using the source address of the update, or the context
("con") parameter if present. If the lifetime parameter "lt" is
included in the received update request, the RD MUST update the
lifetime of the registration and set the timeout equal to the new
lifetime. If the lifetime parameter is not included in the
registration update, the most recent setting is re-used for the next
registration time-out period.
An update MAY optionally add or replace links for the endpoint by
including those links in the payload of the update as a CoRE Link
Format document. A link is replaced only if all of the target URI
and relation type (if present) and anchor value (if present) match.
If the link payload is included, it SHOULD be checked for reference
plurality as described in Section 5.3.4 and rejected with a
"Conflict" result if there are plural link references detected.
In addition to the use of POST, as described in this section, there
is an alternate way to add, replace, and delete links using PATCH as
described in Section 5.4.4.
The update registration request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: POST
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
URI Template: {+location}{?lt,con}
URI Template Variables:
location := This is the Location returned by the RD as a result
of a successful earlier registration.
lt := Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in
seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included,
the previous last lifetime set on a previous update or the
original registration (falling back to 86400) SHOULD be used.
con := Context (optional). This parameter sets the scheme,
address and port at which this server is available in the form
scheme://host:port/path. In the absence of this parameter the
scheme of the protocol, source address and source port of the
register request are assumed. This parameter is mandatory when
the directory is filled by a third party such as an
commissioning tool. When con is used, scheme and host are
mandatory and port and path parameters are optional.
Content-Format: application/link-format (mandatory)
Content-Format: application/link-format+json (optional)
Content-Format: application/link-format+cbor (optional)
The following response codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.04 "Changed" or 204 "No Content" if the update was
successfully processed.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". Registration does not
exist (e.g. may have expired).
Failure: 4.09 "Conflict" or 409 "Conflict". Attempt to update the
registration content with links resulting in plurality of
references; see Section 5.3.4.
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The following example shows an endpoint updating its registration at
an RD using this interface with the example location value: /rd/4521.
Req: POST /rd/4521
Res: 2.04 Changed
The following example shows an endpoint updating its registration
with a new lifetime and context, changing an existing link, and
adding a new link using this interface with the example location
value /rd/4521. With the initial registration the client set the
following values:
o lifetime (lt)=500
o context (con)=coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683
o resource= </sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="foobar";if="sensor"
Req: POST /rd/4521?lt=600&con="coap://local-proxy.example.com:5683"
Content-Format: 40
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-f";if="sensor",
</sensors/door>;ct=41;rt="door";if="sensor"
Res: 2.04 Changed
5.4.2. Registration Removal
Although RD entries have soft state and will eventually timeout after
their lifetime, an endpoint SHOULD explicitly remove its entry from
the RD if it knows it will no longer be available (for example on
shut-down). This is accomplished using a removal interface on the RD
by performing a DELETE on the endpoint resource.
The removal request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: DELETE
URI Template: {+location}
URI Template Variables:
location := This is the Location returned by the RD as a result
of a successful earlier registration.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The following responses codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.02 "Deleted" or 204 "No Content" upon successful deletion
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". Registration does not
exist (e.g. may have expired).
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following examples shows successful removal of the endpoint from
the RD with example location value /rd/4521.
Req: DELETE /rd/4521
Res: 2.02 Deleted
5.4.3. Read Endpoint Links
Some endpoints may wish to manage their links as a collection, and
may need to read the current set of links stored in the registration
resource, in order to determine link maintenance operations.
One or more links MAY be selected by using query filtering as
specified in [RFC6690] Section 4.1
If no links are selected, the Resource Directory SHOULD return an
empty payload.
The read request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: GET
URI Template: {+location}{?href,rel,rt,if,ct}
URI Template Variables:
location := This is the Location returned by the RD as a result
of a successful earlier registration.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
href,rel,rt,if,ct := link relations and attributes specified in
the query in order to select particular links based on their
relations and attributes. "href" denotes the URI target of the
link. See [RFC6690] Sec. 4.1
The following responses codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.05 "Content" or 200 "OK" upon success with an
"application/link-format", "application/link-format+cbor", or
"application/link-format+json" payload.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". Registration does not
exist (e.g. may have expired).
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following examples show successful read of the endpoint links
from the RD, with example location value /rd/4521.
Req: GET /rd/4521
Res: 2.01 Content
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor"
5.4.4. Update Endpoint Links
A PATCH update adds, removes or changes links for the endpoint by
including link update information in the payload of the update as a
merge-patch+json format [RFC7396] document.
Other PATCH document formats may be used as appropriate for patching
the array of objects format of a Registration Resource. In
particular, a select-merge patch document format could combine the
function of link selection query and link attribute replacement
values.
One or more links are selected for update by using query filtering as
specified in [RFC6690] Section 4.1
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The query filter selects the links to be modified or deleted, by
matching the query parameter values to the values of the link
attributes.
When the query parameters are not present in the request, the payload
specifies links to be added to the target document. When the query
parameters are present, the attribute names and values in the query
parameters select one or more links on which to apply the PATCH
operation.
If no links are selected by the query parameters, the PATCH operation
SHOULD NOT update the state of any resource, and SHOULD return a
reply of "Changed".
If an attribute name specified in the PATCH document exists in any
the set of selected links, all occurrences of the attribute value in
the target document MUST be updated using the value from the PATCH
payload. If the attribute name is not present in any selected links,
the attribute MUST be added to the links.
If the PATCH payload contains plural link references, or processing
the PATCH payload would result in plural link references, the request
SHOULD be rejected with a "Conflict" result.
If the PATCH payload results in the modification of link target,
context, or relation values, that is "href", "rel", or "anchor", the
request SHOULD be rejected with a "Conflict" result code.
The update request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: EP -> RD
Method: PATCH
URI Template: {+location}{?href,rel,rt,if,ct}
URI Template Variables:
location := This is the Location returned by the RD as a result
of a successful earlier registration.
href,rel,rt,if,ct := link relations and attributes specified in
the query in order to select particular links based on their
relations and attributes. "href" denotes the URI target of the
link. See [RFC6690] Sec. 4.1
Content-Format: application/merge-patch+json (mandatory)
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The following response codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.04 "Changed" 0r 204 "No Content" in the update was
successfully processed.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". Registration resource
does not exist (e.g. may have expired).
Failure: 4.09 "Conflict" or 409 "Conflict". Attempt to update the
registration content with links resulting in plurality of
references; see Section 5.3.4.
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following examples show an endpoint adding </sensors/humid>,
modifying </sensors/temp>, and removing </sensors/light> links in RD
using the Update Endpoint Links function with the example location
value /rd/4521.
The Registration Resource initial state is:
Req: GET /rd/4521
Res: 2.01 Content
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor"
The following example shows an EP adding the link </sensors/
humid>;ct=41;rt="humid-s";if="sensor" to the collection of links at
the location /rd/4521.
Req: PATCH /rd/4521
Payload:
[{"href":"/sensors/humid","ct": 41, "rt": "humid-s", "if": "sensor"}]
Content-Format:
application/merge-patch+json
Res: 2.04 Changed
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: GET /rd/4521
Res: 2.01 Content
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor",
</sensors/humid>;ct=41;rt="humid-s";if="sensor"
The following example shows an EP modifying all links at the example
location /rd/4521 which are identified by href="/sensors/temp", from
the initial link-value of </sensors/temp>;rt="temperature" to the new
link-value </sensors/temp>;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor" by changing
the value of the link attribute "rt" and adding the link attribute
if="sensor" using the PATCH operation with the supplied merge-
patch+json document payload.
Req: PATCH /rd/4521?href=/sensors/temp
Payload:
{"rt": "temperature-c", "if": "sensor"},
Content-Format:
application/merge-patch+json
Res: 2.04 Changed
Req: GET /rd/4521
Res: 2.01 Content
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
</sensors/light>;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor",
</sensors/humid>;ct=41;rt="humid-s";if="sensor"
This example shows an EP removing all links at the example location
/rd/4521 which are identified by href="/sensors/light".
Req: PATCH /rd/4521?href=/sensors/light
Payload:
{}
Content-Format:
application/merge-patch+json
Res: 2.04 Changed
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: GET /rd/4521
Res: 2.01 Content
Payload:
</sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
</sensors/humid>;ct=41;rt="humid-s";if="sensor"
6. RD Groups
This section defines the REST API for the creation, management, and
lookup of endpoints for group operations. Similar to endpoint
registration entries in the RD, groups may be created or removed.
However unlike an endpoint entry, a group entry consists of a list of
endpoints and does not have a lifetime associated with it. In order
to make use of multicast requests with CoAP, a group MAY have a
multicast address associated with it.
6.1. Register a Group
In order to create a group, a commissioning tool (CT) used to
configure groups, makes a request to the RD indicating the name of
the group to create (or update), optionally the domain the group
belongs to, and optionally the multicast address of the group. The
registration message includes the list of endpoints that belong to
that group.
All the endpoints in the group MUST be registered with the RD before
registering a group. If an endpoint is not yet registered to the RD
before registering the group, the registration message returns an
error. The RD sends a blank target URI for every endpoint link when
registering the group.
Configuration of the endpoints themselves is out of scope of this
specification. Such an interface for managing the group membership
of an endpoint has been defined in [RFC7390].
The registration request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: CT -> RD
Method: POST
URI Template: {+rd-group}{?gp,d,con}
URI Template Variables:
rd-group := RD Group URI (mandatory). This is the location of
the RD Group REST API.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
gp := Group Name (mandatory). The name of the group to be
created or replaced, unique within that domain. The maximum
length of this parameter is 63 bytes.
d := Domain (optional). The domain to which this group belongs.
The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. Optional.
When this parameter is elided, the RD MAY associate the
endpoint with a configured default domain.
con := Context (optional). This parameter sets the scheme,
address and port at which this server is available in the form
scheme://host:port/path. In the absence of this parameter the
scheme of the protocol, source address and source port of the
register request are assumed. This parameter is mandatory when
the directory is filled by a third party such as an
commissioning tool. When con is used, scheme and host are
mandatory and port and path parameters are optional.
Content-Format: application/link-format
Content-Format: application/link-format+json
Content-Format: application/link-format+cbor
The following response codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.01 "Created" or 201 "Created". The Location header
option MUST be returned in response to a successful group CREATE
operation. This Location MUST be a stable identifier generated by
the RD as it is used for delete operations of the group
registration resource.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". An Endpoint is not
registered in the RD (e.g. may have expired).
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following example shows an EP registering a group with the name
"lights" which has two endpoints to an RD using this interface. The
RD group path /rd-group is an example RD location discovered in a
request similar to Figure 4.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd-group?gp=lights
Content-Format: 40
Payload:
<>;ep="node1",
<>;ep="node2"
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd-group/12
6.2. Group Removal
A group can be removed simply by sending a removal message to the
location of the group registration resource which was returned when
intially registering the group. Removing a group MUST NOT remove the
endpoints of the group from the RD.
The removal request interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: CT -> RD
Method: DELETE
URI Template: {+location}
URI Template Variables:
location := This is the Location returned by the RD as a result
of a successful group registration.
The following responses codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.02 "Deleted" or 204 "No Content" upon successful deletion
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found". Group does not exist.
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The following examples shows successful removal of the group from the
RD with the example location value /rd-group/12.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: DELETE /rd-group/12
Res: 2.02 Deleted
7. RD Lookup
In order for an RD to be used for discovering resources registered
with it, an optional lookup interface may be provided. This lookup
interface is defined as a default, and it is assumed that RDs may
also support lookups to return resource descriptions in alternative
formats (e.g. Atom or HTML Link) or using more advanced interfaces
(e.g. supporting context or semantic based lookup).
RD Lookup allows lookups for domains, groups, endpoints and resources
using attributes defined in this document and for use with the CoRE
Link Format. The result of a lookup request is the list of links (if
any) corresponding to the type of lookup. Thus, a domain lookup MUST
return a list of domains, a group lookup MUST return a list of
groups, an endpoint lookup MUST return a list of endpoints and a
resource lookup MUST return a list of links to resources.
RD Lookup does not expose registration resources directly, but
returns link content from registration resource entries which satisfy
RD Lookup queries.
The lookup type is selected by a URI endpoint, which is indicated by
a Resource Type as per Table 1 below:
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Lookup Type | Resource Type | Mandatory |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Resource | core.rd-lookup-res | Mandatory |
| Endpoint | core.rd-lookup-ep | Mandatory |
| Domain | core.rd-lookup-d | Optional |
| Group | core.rd-lookup-gp | Optional |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Lookup Types
Each endpoint and resource lookup result returns respectively the
scheme (IP address and port) followed by the path part of the URI of
every endpoint and resource inside angle brackets ("<>") and followed
by the other parameters.
The target of these links SHOULD be the actual location of the
domain, endpoint or resource, but MAY be an intermediate proxy e.g.
in the case of an HTTP lookup interface for CoAP endpoints.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The domain lookup returns every lookup domain with a base RD resource
value (e.g. "/rd") encapsulated within angle brackets.
In case that a group does not implement any multicast address, the
group lookup returns every group lookup with a group base resource
value encapsulated within angle brackets (e.g. "/rd/look-up").
Otherwise, the group lookup returns the multicast address of the
group inside angle brackets.
Using the Accept Option, the requester can control whether this list
is returned in CoRE Link Format ("application/link-format", default)
or its alternate content-formats ("application/link-format+json" or
"application/link-format+cbor").
The page and count parameters are used to obtain lookup results in
specified increments using pagination, where count specifies how many
links to return and page specifies which subset of links organized in
sequential pages, each containing 'count' links, starting with link
zero and page zero. Thus, specifying count of 10 and page of 0 will
return the first 10 links in the result set (links 0-9). Count = 10
and page = 1 will return the next 'page' containing links 10-19, and
so on.
Multiple query parameters MAY be included in a lookup, all included
parameters MUST match for a resource to be returned. The
character'*' MAY be included at the end of a parameter value as a
wildcard operator.
RD Lookup requests MAY use any set of query parameters to match the
registered attributes and relations. In addition, this interface MAY
be used with queries that specify domains, endpoints, and groups.
For example, a domain lookup filtering on groups would return a list
of domains that contain the specified groups. An endpoint lookup
filtering on groups would return a list of endpoints that are in the
specified groups.
Clients that are interested in a lookup result repeatedly or
continuously can use mechanisms like ETag caching, resource
observation ([RFC7641]), or any future mechanism that might allow
more efficient observations of collections. These are advertised,
detected and used according to their own specifications and can be
used with the lookup interface as with any other resource.
The lookup interface is specified as follows:
Interaction: Client -> RD
Method: GET
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
URI Template: {+type-lookup-
location}{?d,res,ep,gp,et,rt,page,count,resource-param}
URI Template Variables:
type-lookup-location := RD Lookup URI for a given lookup type
(mandatory). The address is discovered as described in
Section 5.2.
ep := Endpoint name (optional). Used for endpoint, group and
resource lookups.
d := Domain (optional). Used for domain, group, endpoint and
resource lookups.
res := resource (optional). Used for domain, group, endpoint and
resource lookups.
gp := Group name (optional). Used for endpoint, group and
resource lookups.
page := Page (optional). Parameter can not be used without the
count parameter. Results are returned from result set in pages
that contain 'count' links starting from index (page * count).
Page numbering starts with zero.
count := Count (optional). Number of results is limited to this
parameter value. If the page parameter is also present, the
response MUST only include 'count' links starting with the
(page * count) link in the result set from the query. If the
count parameter is not present, then the response MUST return
all matching links in the result set. Link numbering starts
with zero.
rt := Resource type (optional). Used for group, endpoint and
resource lookups.
et := Endpoint type (optional). Used for group, endpoint and
resource lookups.
resource-param := Link attribute parameters (optional). Any link
target attribute as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC6690], used
for resource lookups.
Content-Format: application/link-format (optional)
Content-Format: application/link-format+json (optional)
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Content-Format: application/link-format+cbor (optional)
The following responses codes are defined for this interface:
Success: 2.05 "Content" or 200 "OK" with an "application/link-
format", "application/link-format+cbor", or "application/link-
format+json" payload containing matching entries for the lookup.
Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found" in case no matching
entry is found for a unicast request.
Failure: No error response to a multicast request.
Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" or 400 "Bad Request". Malformed
request.
Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable" or 503 "Service Unavailable".
Service could not perform the operation.
HTTP support: YES
The examples in this section assume CoAP hosts with a default CoAP
port 61616. HTTP hosts are possible and do not change the nature of
the examples.
The following example shows a client performing a resource lookup
with the example resource look-up locations discovered in Figure 4:
Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/temp>;rt="temperature"
The following example shows a client performing an endpoint type
lookup:
Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?et=power-node
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::127]:61616>;ep="node5",
<coap://[FDFD::129]:61616>;ep="node7"
The following example shows a client performing a domain lookup:
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: GET /rd-lookup/d
Res: 2.05 Content
<>;d="domain1",
<>;d="domain2"
The following example shows a client performing a group lookup for
all groups:
Req: GET /rd-lookup/gp
Res: 2.05 Content
<>;gp="lights1";d="example.com"
<>;gp="lights2";d="ecample.com"
The following example shows a client performing a lookup for all
endpoints in a particular group:
Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?gp=lights1
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616>;ep="node1",
<coap://[FDFD::124]:61616>;ep="node2"
The following example shows a client performing a lookup for all
groups an endpoint belongs to:
Req: GET /rd-lookup/gp?ep=node1
Res: 2.05 Content
<>;gp="lights1"
The following example shows a client performing a paginated lookup
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?page=0&count=5
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/0>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/1>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/2>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/3>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/4>;rt=sensor;ct=60
Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?page=1&count=5
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/5>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/6>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/7>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/8>;rt=sensor;ct=60
<coap://[FDFD::123]:61616/res/9>;rt=sensor;ct=60
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations as described in Section 7 of [RFC5988]
and Section 6 of [RFC6690] apply. The "/.well-known/core" resource
may be protected e.g. using DTLS when hosted on a CoAP server as
described in [RFC7252]. DTLS or TLS based security SHOULD be used on
all resource directory interfaces defined in this document.
8.1. Endpoint Identification and Authentication
An Endpoint is determined to be unique by an RD by the Endpoint
identifier parameter included during Registration, and any associated
TLS or DTLS security bindings. An Endpoint MUST NOT be identified by
its protocol, port or IP address as these may change over the
lifetime of an Endpoint.
Every operation performed by an Endpoint or Client on a resource
directory SHOULD be mutually authenticated using Pre-Shared Key, Raw
Public Key or Certificate based security. Endpoints using a
Certificate MUST include the Endpoint identifier as the Subject of
the Certificate, and this identifier MUST be checked by a resource
directory to match the Endpoint identifier included in the
Registration message.
8.2. Access Control
Access control SHOULD be performed separately for the RD
registration, Lookup, and group API paths, as different endpoints may
be authorized to register with an RD from those authorized to lookup
endpoints from the RD. Such access control SHOULD be performed in as
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
fine-grained a level as possible. For example access control for
lookups could be performed either at the domain, endpoint or resource
level.
8.3. Denial of Service Attacks
Services that run over UDP unprotected are vulnerable to unknowingly
become part of a DDoS attack as UDP does not require return
routability check. Therefore, an attacker can easily spoof the
source IP of the target entity and send requests to such a service
which would then respond to the target entity. This can be used for
large-scale DDoS attacks on the target. Especially, if the service
returns a response that is order of magnitudes larger than the
request, the situation becomes even worse as now the attack can be
amplified. DNS servers have been widely used for DDoS amplification
attacks. There is also a danger that NTP Servers could become
implicated in denial-of-service (DoS) attacks since they run on
unprotected UDP, there is no return routability check, and they can
have a large amplification factor. The responses from the NTP server
were found to be 19 times larger than the request. A Resource
Directory (RD) which responds to wild-card lookups is potentially
vulnerable if run with CoAP over UDP. Since there is no return
routability check and the responses can be significantly larger than
requests, RDs can unknowingly become part of a DDoS amplification
attack.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Resource Types
"core.rd", "core.rd-group", "core.rd-lookup-ep", "core.rd-lookup-
res", "core.rd-lookup-d", and "core.rd-lookup-gp" resource types need
to be registered with the resource type registry defined by
[RFC6690].
9.2. IPv6 ND Resource Directory Address Option
This document registers one new ND option type under the subregistry
"IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats":
o Resource Directory address Option (38)
9.3. RD Parameter Registry
This specification defines a new sub-registry for registration and
lookup parameters called "RD Parameters" under "CoRE Parameters".
Although this specification defines a basic set of parameters, it is
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
expected that other standards that make use of this interface will
define new ones.
Each entry in the registry must include the human readable name of
the parameter, the query parameter, validity requirements if any and
a description. The query parameter MUST be a valid URI query key
[RFC3986].
Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:
+----------+-------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| Name | Query | Validity | Description |
+----------+-------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| Endpoint | ep | | Name of the endpoint, max 63 |
| Name | | | bytes |
| Lifetime | lt | 60-4294967295 | Lifetime of the registration |
| | | | in seconds |
| Domain | d | | Domain to which this endpoint |
| | | | belongs |
| Endpoint | et | | Semantic name of the endpoint |
| Type | | | |
| Context | con | URI | The scheme, address and port |
| | | | and path at which this server |
| | | | is available |
| Resource | res | | Name of the resource |
| Name | | | |
| Group | gp | | Name of a group in the RD |
| Name | | | |
| Page | page | Integer | Used for pagination |
| Count | count | Integer | Used for pagination |
+----------+-------+---------------+--------------------------------+
Table 2: RD Parameters
The IANA policy for future additions to the sub-registry is "Expert
Review" as described in [RFC5226].
10. Examples
Two examples are presented: a Lighting Installation example in
Section 10.1 and a LWM2M example in Section 10.2.
10.1. Lighting Installation
This example shows a simplified lighting installation which makes use
of the Resource Directory (RD) with a CoAP interface to facilitate
the installation and start up of the application code in the lights
and sensors. In particular, the example leads to the definition of a
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
group and the enabling of the corresponding multicast address. No
conclusions must be drawn on the realization of actual installation
or naming procedures, because the example only "emphasizes" some of
the issues that may influence the use of the RD and does not pretend
to be normative.
10.1.1. Installation Characteristics
The example assumes that the installation is managed. That means
that a Commissioning Tool (CT) is used to authorize the addition of
nodes, name them, and name their services. The CT can be connected
to the installation in many ways: the CT can be part of the
installation network, connected by WiFi to the installation network,
or connected via GPRS link, or other method.
It is assumed that there are two naming authorities for the
installation: (1) the network manager that is responsible for the
correct operation of the network and the connected interfaces, and
(2) the lighting manager that is responsible for the correct
functioning of networked lights and sensors. The result is the
existence of two naming schemes coming from the two managing
entities.
The example installation consists of one presence sensor, and two
luminaries, luminary1 and luminary2, each with their own wireless
interface. Each luminary contains three lamps: left, right and
middle. Each luminary is accessible through one endpoint. For each
lamp a resource exists to modify the settings of a lamp in a
luminary. The purpose of the installation is that the presence
sensor notifies the presence of persons to a group of lamps. The
group of lamps consists of: middle and left lamps of luminary1 and
right lamp of luminary2.
Before commissioning by the lighting manager, the network is
installed and access to the interfaces is proven to work by the
network manager.
At the moment of installation, the network under installation is not
necessarily connected to the DNS infra structure. Therefore, SLAAC
IPv6 addresses are assigned to CT, RD, luminaries and sensor shown in
Table 3 below:
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
+--------------------+--------------+
| Name | IPv6 address |
+--------------------+--------------+
| luminary1 | FDFD::ABCD:1 |
| luminary2 | FDFD::ABCD:2 |
| Presence sensor | FDFD::ABCD:3 |
| Resource directory | FDFD::ABCD:0 |
+--------------------+--------------+
Table 3: interface SLAAC addresses
In Section 10.1.2 the use of resource directory during installation
is presented.
10.1.2. RD entries
It is assumed that access to the DNS infrastructure is not always
possible during installation. Therefore, the SLAAC addresses are
used in this section.
For discovery, the resource types (rt) of the devices are important.
The lamps in the luminaries have rt: light, and the presence sensor
has rt: p-sensor. The endpoints have names which are relevant to the
light installation manager. In this case luminary1, luminary2, and
the presence sensor are located in room 2-4-015, where luminary1 is
located at the window and luminary2 and the presence sensor are
located at the door. The endpoint names reflect this physical
location. The middle, left and right lamps are accessed via path
/light/middle, /light/left, and /light/right respectively. The
identifiers relevant to the Resource Directory are shown in Table 4
below:
+----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Name | endpoint | resource path | resource type |
+----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
| luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/left | light |
| luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/middle | light |
| luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/right | light |
| luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/left | light |
| luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/middle | light |
| luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/right | light |
| Presence | ps_R2-4-015_door | /ps | p-sensor |
| sensor | | | |
+----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
Table 4: Resource Directory identifiers
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
It is assumed that the CT knows of the RD's address, and has
performed URI discovery on it that gave a response like the one in
the Section 5.2 example.
The CT inserts the endpoints of the luminaries and the sensor in the
RD using the Context parameter (con) to specify the interface
address:
Req: POST coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd
?ep=lm_R2-4-015_wndw&con=coap://[FDFD::ABCD:1]&d=R2-4-015
Payload:
</light/left>;rt="light",
</light/middle>;rt="light",
</light/right>;rt="light"
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd/4521
Req: POST coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd
?ep=lm_R2-4-015_door&con=coap://[FDFD::ABCD:2]&d=R2-4-015
Payload:
</light/left>;rt="light",
</light/middle>;rt="light",
</light/right>;rt="light"
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd/4522
Req: POST coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd
?ep=ps_R2-4-015_door&con=coap://[FDFD::ABCD:3]d&d=R2-4-015
Payload:
</ps>;rt="p-sensor"
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd/4523
The domain name d=R2-4-015 has been added for an efficient lookup
because filtering on "ep" name is more awkward. The same domain name
is communicated to the two luminaries and the presence sensor by the
CT.
The group is specified in the RD. The Context parameter is set to
the site-local multicast address allocated to the group. In the POST
in the example below, these two endpoints and the endpoint of the
presence sensor are registered as members of the group.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: POST coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd-group
?gp=grp_R2-4-015&con=coap://[FF05::1]
Payload:
<>;ep=lm_R2-4-015_wndw,
<>;ep=lm_R2-4-015_door,
<>;ep=ps_R2-4-015_door
Res: 2.01 Created
Location: /rd-group/501
After the filling of the RD by the CT, the application in the
luminaries can learn to which groups they belong, and enable their
interface for the multicast address.
The luminary, knowing its domain, queries the RD for the endpoint
with rt=light and d=R2-4-015. The RD returns all endpoints in the
domain.
Req: GET coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd-lookup/ep
?d=R2-4-015;rt=light
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FDFD::ABCD:1]>;
ep="lm_R2-4-015_wndw",
<coap://[FDFD::ABCD:2]>;
ep="lm_R2-4-015_door"
Knowing its own IPv6 address, the luminary discovers its endpoint
name. With the endpoint name the luminary queries the RD for all
groups to which the endpoint belongs.
Req: GET coap://[FDFD::ABCD:0]/rd-lookup/gp
?ep=lm_R2-4-015_wndw
Res: 2.05 Content
<coap://[FF05::1]>;gp="grp_R2-4-015"
From the context parameter value, the luminary learns the multicast
address of the multicast group.
Alternatively, the CT can communicate the multicast address directly
to the luminaries by using the "coap-group" resource specified in
[RFC7390].
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Req: POST //[FDFD::ABCD:1]/coap-group
Content-Format: application/coap-group+json
{ "a": "[FF05::1]",
"n": "grp_R2-4-015"}
Res: 2.01 Created
Location-Path: /coap-group/1
Dependent on the situation, only the address, "a", or the name, "n",
is specified in the coap-group resource.
10.2. OMA Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) Example
This example shows how the OMA LWM2M specification makes use of
Resource Directory (RD).
OMA LWM2M is a profile for device services based on CoAP(OMA Name
Authority). LWM2M defines a simple object model and a number of
abstract interfaces and operations for device management and device
service enablement.
An LWM2M server is an instance of an LWM2M middleware service layer,
containing a Resource Directory along with other LWM2M interfaces
defined by the LWM2M specification.
CoRE Resource Directory (RD) is used to provide the LWM2M
Registration interface.
LWM2M does not provide for registration domains and does not
currently use the rd-group or rd-lookup interfaces.
The LWM2M specification describes a set of interfaces and a resource
model used between a LWM2M device and an LWM2M server. Other
interfaces, proxies, and applications are currently out of scope for
LWM2M.
The location of the LWM2M Server and RD URI path is provided by the
LWM2M Bootstrap process, so no dynamic discovery of the RD is used.
LWM2M Servers and endpoints are not required to implement the /.well-
known/core resource.
10.2.1. The LWM2M Object Model
The OMA LWM2M object model is based on a simple 2 level class
hierarchy consisting of Objects and Resources.
An LWM2M Resource is a REST endpoint, allowed to be a single value or
an array of values of the same data type.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
An LWM2M Object is a resource template and container type that
encapsulates a set of related resources. An LWM2M Object represents
a specific type of information source; for example, there is a LWM2M
Device Management object that represents a network connection,
containing resources that represent individual properties like radio
signal strength.
Since there may potentially be more than one of a given type object,
for example more than one network connection, LWM2M defines instances
of objects that contain the resources that represent a specific
physical thing.
The URI template for LWM2M consists of a base URI followed by Object,
Instance, and Resource IDs:
{/base-uri}{/object-id}{/object-instance}{/resource-id}{/resource-
instance}
The five variables given here are strings. base-uri can also have
the special value "undefined" (sometimes called "null" in RFC 6570).
Each of the variables object-instance, resource-id, and resource-
instance can be the special value "undefined" only if the values
behind it in this sequence also are "undefined". As a special case,
object-instance can be "empty" (which is different from "undefined")
if resource-id is not "undefined".
base-uri := Base URI for LWM2M resources or "undefined" for default
(empty) base URI
object-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered object ID (0-65535)
object-instance := Object instance identifier (0-65535) or
"undefined"/"empty" (see above)) to refer to all instances of an
object ID
resource-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered resource ID
(0-65535) or "undefined" to refer to all resources within an instance
resource-instance := Resource instance identifier or "undefined" to
refer to single instance of a resource
LWM2M IDs are 16 bit unsigned integers represented in decimal (no
leading zeroes except for the value 0) by URI format strings. For
example, a LWM2M URI might be:
/1/0/1
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
The base uri is empty, the Object ID is 1, the instance ID is 0, the
resource ID is 1, and the resource instance is "undefined". This
example URI points to internal resource 1, which represents the
registration lifetime configured, in instance 0 of a type 1 object
(LWM2M Server Object).
10.2.2. LWM2M Register Endpoint
LWM2M defines a registration interface based on the REST API,
described in Section 5. The RD registration URI path of the LWM2M
Resource Directory is specified to be "/rd".
LWM2M endpoints register object IDs, for example </1>, to indicate
that a particular object type is supported, and register object
instances, for example </1/0>, to indicate that a particular instance
of that object type exists.
Resources within the LWM2M object instance are not registered with
the RD, but may be discovered by reading the resource links from the
object instance using GET with a CoAP Content-Format of application/
link-format. Resources may also be read as a structured object by
performing a GET to the object instance with a Content-Format of
senml+json.
When an LWM2M object or instance is registered, this indicates to the
LWM2M server that the object and its resources are available for
management and service enablement (REST API) operations.
LWM2M endpoints may use the following RD registration parameters as
defined in Table 2 :
ep - Endpoint Name
lt - registration lifetime
Endpoint Name is mandatory, all other registration parameters are
optional.
Additional optional LWM2M registration parameters are defined:
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
+------------+-------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| Name | Query | Validity | Description |
+------------+-------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| Protocol | b | {"U",UQ","S","SQ","US","UQS"} | Available |
| Binding | | | Protocols |
| | | | |
| LWM2M | ver | 1.0 | Spec Version |
| Version | | | |
| | | | |
| SMS Number | sms | | MSISDN |
+------------+-------+-------------------------------+--------------+
Table 5: LWM2M Additional Registration Parameters
The following RD registration parameters are not currently specified
for use in LWM2M:
et - Endpoint Type
con - Context
The endpoint registration must include a payload containing links to
all supported objects and existing object instances, optionally
including the appropriate link-format relations.
Here is an example LWM2M registration payload:
</1>,</1/0>,</3/0>,</5>
This link format payload indicates that object ID 1 (LWM2M Server
Object) is supported, with a single instance 0 existing, object ID 3
(LWM2M Device object) is supported, with a single instance 0
existing, and object 5 (LWM2M Firmware Object) is supported, with no
existing instances.
10.2.3. LWM2M Update Endpoint Registration
An LWM2M Registration update proceeds as described in Section 5.4.1,
and adds some optional parameter updates:
lt - Registration Lifetime
b - Protocol Binding
sms - MSISDN
link payload - new or modified links
A Registration update is also specified to be used to update the
LWM2M server whenever the endpoint's UDP port or IP address are
changed.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
10.2.4. LWM2M De-Register Endpoint
LWM2M allows for de-registration using the delete method on the
returned location from the initial registration operation. LWM2M de-
registration proceeds as described in Section 5.4.2.
11. Acknowledgments
Oscar Novo, Srdjan Krco, Szymon Sasin, Kerry Lynn, Esko Dijk, Anders
Brandt, Matthieu Vial, Mohit Sethi, Sampo Ukkola, Linyi Tian,
Chistian Amsuss, and Jan Newmarch have provided helpful comments,
discussions and ideas to improve and shape this document. Zach would
also like to thank his colleagues from the EU FP7 SENSEI project,
where many of the resource directory concepts were originally
developed.
12. Changelog
changes from -09 to -10
o removed "ins" and "exp" link-format extensions.
o removed all text concerning DNS-SD.
o removed inconsistency in RDAO text.
o suggestions taken over from various sources
o replaced "Function Set" with "REST API", "base URI", "base path"
o moved simple registration to registration section
changes from -08 to -09
o clarified the "example use" of the base RD resource values /rd,
/rd-lookup, and /rd-group.
o changed "ins" ABNF notation.
o various editorial improvements, including in examples
o clarifications for RDAO
changes from -07 to -08
o removed link target value returned from domain and group lookup
types
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
o Maximum length of domain parameter 63 bytes for consistency with
group
o removed option for simple POST of link data, don't require a
.well-known/core resource to accept POST data and handle it in a
special way; we already have /rd for that
o add IPv6 ND Option for discovery of an RD
o clarify group configuration section 6.1 that endpoints must be
registered before including them in a group
o removed all superfluous client-server diagrams
o simplified lighting example
o introduced Commissioning Tool
o RD-Look-up text is extended.
changes from -06 to -07
o added text in the discovery section to allow content format hints
to be exposed in the discovery link attributes
o editorial updates to section 9
o update author information
o minor text corrections
Changes from -05 to -06
o added note that the PATCH section is contingent on the progress of
the PATCH method
changes from -04 to -05
o added Update Endpoint Links using PATCH
o http access made explicit in interface specification
o Added http examples
Changes from -03 to -04:
o Added http response codes
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
o Clarified endpoint name usage
o Add application/link-format+cbor content-format
Changes from -02 to -03:
o Added an example for lighting and DNS integration
o Added an example for RD use in OMA LWM2M
o Added Read Links operation for link inspection by endpoints
o Expanded DNS-SD section
o Added draft authors Peter van der Stok and Michael Koster
Changes from -01 to -02:
o Added a catalogue use case.
o Changed the registration update to a POST with optional link
format payload. Removed the endpoint type update from the update.
o Additional examples section added for more complex use cases.
o New DNS-SD mapping section.
o Added text on endpoint identification and authentication.
o Error code 4.04 added to Registration Update and Delete requests.
o Made 63 bytes a SHOULD rather than a MUST for endpoint name and
resource type parameters.
Changes from -00 to -01:
o Removed the ETag validation feature.
o Place holder for the DNS-SD mapping section.
o Explicitly disabled GET or POST on returned Location.
o New registry for RD parameters.
o Added support for the JSON Link Format.
o Added reference to the Groupcomm WG draft.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Changes from -05 to WG Document -00:
o Updated the version and date.
Changes from -04 to -05:
o Restricted Update to parameter updates.
o Added pagination support for the Lookup interface.
o Minor editing, bug fixes and reference updates.
o Added group support.
o Changed rt to et for the registration and update interface.
Changes from -03 to -04:
o Added the ins= parameter back for the DNS-SD mapping.
o Integrated the Simple Directory Discovery from Carsten.
o Editorial improvements.
o Fixed the use of ETags.
o Fixed tickets 383 and 372
Changes from -02 to -03:
o Changed the endpoint name back to a single registration parameter
ep= and removed the h= and ins= parameters.
o Updated REST interface descriptions to use RFC6570 URI Template
format.
o Introduced an improved RD Lookup design as its own function set.
o Improved the security considerations section.
o Made the POST registration interface idempotent by requiring the
ep= parameter to be present.
Changes from -01 to -02:
o Added a terminology section.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
o Changed the inclusion of an ETag in registration or update to a
MAY.
o Added the concept of an RD Domain and a registration parameter for
it.
o Recommended the Location returned from a registration to be
stable, allowing for endpoint and Domain information to be changed
during updates.
o Changed the lookup interface to accept endpoint and Domain as
query string parameters to control the scope of a lookup.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-links-json]
Li, K., Rahman, A., and C. Bormann, "Representing
Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format in
JSON and CBOR", draft-ietf-core-links-json-08 (work in
progress), April 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.
[RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
[RFC7396] Hoffman, P. and J. Snell, "JSON Merge Patch", RFC 7396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7396, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7396>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8132>.
13.2. Informative References
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7390] Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.
[RFC7641] Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory July 2017
Authors' Addresses
Zach Shelby
ARM
150 Rose Orchard
San Jose 95134
USA
Phone: +1-408-203-9434
Email: zach.shelby@arm.com
Michael Koster
SmartThings
665 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View 94043
USA
Phone: +1-707-502-5136
Email: Michael.Koster@smartthings.com
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Peter van der Stok
consultant
Phone: +31-492474673 (Netherlands), +33-966015248 (France)
Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org
URI: www.vanderstok.org
Christian Amsuess (editor)
Energy Harvesting Solutions
Hollandstr. 12/4
1020
Austria
Phone: +43-664-9790639
Email: c.amsuess@energyharvesting.at
Shelby, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 53]
