Skip to main content

Building Power-Efficient Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Devices for Cellular Networks
RFC 9178

Document Type RFC - Informational (May 2022)
Authors Jari Arkko , Anders Eriksson , Ari Keränen
Last updated 2022-05-27
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
IESG Responsible AD Suresh Krishnan
Send notices to (None)
RFC 9178

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 9178                                      Ericsson
Category: Informational                                      A. Eriksson
ISSN: 2070-1721                                              Independent
                                                              A. Keränen
                                                                May 2022

Building Power-Efficient Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Devices
                         for Cellular Networks


   This memo discusses the use of the Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) in building sensors and other devices that employ cellular
   networks as a communications medium.  Building communicating devices
   that employ these networks is obviously well known, but this memo
   focuses specifically on techniques necessary to minimize power

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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
   ( 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Goals for Low-Power Operation
   3.  Link-Layer Assumptions
   4.  Scenarios
   5.  Discovery and Registration
   6.  Data Formats
   7.  Real-Time Reachable Devices
   8.  Sleepy Devices
     8.1.  Implementation Considerations
   9.  Security Considerations
   10. IANA Considerations
   11. References
     11.1.  Normative References
     11.2.  Informative References
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This memo discusses the use of the Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) [RFC7252] in building sensors and other devices that employ
   cellular networks as a communications medium.  Building communicating
   devices that employ these networks is obviously well known, but this
   memo focuses specifically on techniques necessary to minimize power
   consumption.  CoAP has many advantages, including being simple to
   implement; a thousand lines of code for the entire application above
   the IP layer is plenty for a CoAP-based sensor, for instance.
   However, while many of these advantages are obvious and easily
   obtained, optimizing power consumption remains challenging and
   requires careful design [Tiny-CoAP].

   This memo primarily targets 3GPP cellular networks in their 2G, 3G,
   LTE, and 5G variants and their future enhancements, including
   possible power efficiency improvements at the radio and link layers.
   The exact standards or details of the link layer or radios are not
   relevant for our purposes, however.  To be more precise, the material
   in this memo is suitable for any large-scale, public network that
   employs a point-to-point communications model and radio technology
   for the devices in the network.

   Our focus is on devices that need to be optimized for power usage and
   devices that employ CoAP.  As a general technology, CoAP is similar
   to HTTP.  It can be used in various ways, and network entities may
   take on different roles.  This freedom allows the technology to be
   used in efficient and less efficient ways.  Some guidance is needed
   to understand what types of communication over CoAP are recommended
   when low power usage is a critical goal.

   The recommendations in this memo should be taken as complementary to
   device hardware optimization, microelectronics improvements, and
   further evolution of the underlying link and radio layers.  Further
   gains in power efficiency can certainly be gained on several fronts;
   the approach that we take in this memo is to do what can be done at
   the IP, transport, and application layers to provide the best
   possible power efficiency.  Application implementors generally have
   to use the current-generation microelectronics, currently available
   radio networks and standards, and so on.  This focus in our memo
   should by no means be taken as an indication that further evolution
   in these other areas is unnecessary.  Such evolution is useful,
   ongoing, and generally complementary to the techniques presented in
   this memo.  However, the list of techniques described in this
   document as useful for a particular application may change with the
   evolution of these underlying technologies.

   The rest of this memo is structured as follows.  Section 2 discusses
   the need and goals for low-power devices.  Section 3 outlines our
   expectations for the low-layer communications model.  Section 4
   describes the two scenarios that we address.  Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8
   give guidelines for the use of CoAP in these scenarios.

   This document was originally finalized in 2016 but is published six
   years later due to waiting for key references to reach RFC status.
   Therefore, some of the latest advancements in cellular network, CoAP,
   and other technologies are not discussed here, and some of the
   references point to documents that were state of the art in 2016.

2.  Goals for Low-Power Operation

   There are many situations where power usage optimization is
   unnecessary.  Optimization may not be necessary on devices that can
   run on a power feed over wired communications media, such as in
   Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) solutions.  These devices may require a
   rudimentary level of power optimization techniques just to keep
   overall energy costs and aggregate power feed sizes at a reasonable
   level, but more extreme techniques necessary for battery-powered
   devices are not required.  The situation is similar with devices that
   can easily be connected to mains power.  Other types of devices may
   get an occasional charge of power from energy-harvesting techniques.
   For instance, some environmental sensors can run on solar cells.
   Typically, these devices still have to regulate their power usage in
   a strict manner -- for instance, to be able to use solar cells that
   are as small and inexpensive as possible.

   In battery-operated devices, power usage is even more important.  For
   instance, one of the authors employs over a hundred different sensor
   devices in their home network.  A majority of these devices are wired
   and run on PoE, but in most environments this would be impractical
   because the necessary wires do not exist.  The future is in wireless
   solutions that can cover buildings and other environments without
   assuming a pre-existing wired infrastructure.  In addition, in many
   cases it is impractical to provide a mains power source.  Often,
   there are no power sockets easily available in the locations that the
   devices need to be in, and even if there were, setting up the wires
   and power adapters would be more complicated than installing a
   standalone device without any wires.

   Yet, with a large number of devices, the battery lifetimes become
   critical.  Cost and practical limits dictate that devices can be
   largely just bought and left on their own.  For instance, with a
   hundred devices, even a ten-year battery lifetime results in a
   monthly battery change for one device within the network.  This may
   be impractical in many environments.  In addition, some devices may
   be physically difficult to reach for a battery change.  Or, a large
   group of devices -- such as utility meters or environmental sensors
   -- cannot be economically serviced too often, even if in theory the
   batteries could be changed.

   Many of these situations lead to a requirement for minimizing power
   usage and/or maximizing battery lifetimes.  Using the power usage
   strategies described in [RFC7228], mains-powered sensor-type devices
   can use the Always-on strategy, whereas battery-operated or energy-
   harvesting devices need to adjust behavior based on the communication
   interval.  For intervals on the order of seconds, the Low-power
   strategy is appropriate.  For intervals ranging from minutes to
   hours, either the Low-power or Normally-off strategy is suitable.
   Finally, for intervals lasting days or longer, Normally-off is
   usually the best choice.  Unfortunately, much of our current
   technology has been built with different objectives in mind -- for
   instance, networked devices that are "always on", gadgets that
   require humans to recharge them every couple of days, and protocols
   that have been optimized to maximize throughput rather than conserve

   Long battery lifetimes are required for many applications, however.
   In some cases, these lifetimes should be on the order of years or
   even a decade or longer.  Some communication devices already reach
   multi-year lifetimes, and continuous improvements in low-power
   electronics and advances in radio technology keep pushing these
   lifetimes longer.  However, it is perhaps fair to say that battery
   lifetimes are generally too short at present.

   Power usage cannot be evaluated based solely on lower-layer
   communications.  The entire system, including upper-layer protocols
   and applications, is responsible for the power consumption as a
   whole.  The lower communication layers have already adopted many
   techniques that can be used to reduce power usage, such as scheduling
   device wake-up times.  Further reductions will likely need some
   cooperation from the upper layers so that unnecessary communications,
   denial-of-service attacks on power consumption, and other power
   drains are eliminated.

   Of course, application requirements ultimately determine what kinds
   of communications are necessary.  For instance, some applications
   require more data to be sent than others.  The purpose of the
   guidelines in this memo is not to prefer one or the other
   application, but to provide guidance on how to minimize the amount of
   communications overhead that is not directly required by the
   application.  While such optimization is generally useful, it is,
   relatively speaking, most noticeable in applications that transfer
   only a small amount of data or operate only infrequently.

3.  Link-Layer Assumptions

   We assume that the underlying communications network can be any
   large-scale, public network that employs a point-to-point
   communications model and radio technology.  2G, 3G, LTE, and 5G
   networks are examples of such networks but are not the only possible
   networks with these characteristics.

   In the following, we look at some of these characteristics and their
   implications.  Note that in most cases these characteristics are not
   properties of the specific networks but rather are inherent in the
   concept of public networks.

   *  Public Networks

      Using a public network service implies that applications can be
      deployed without having to build a network to go with them.  For
      economic reasons, only the largest users (such as utility
      companies) could afford to build their own network, and even they
      would not be able to provide worldwide coverage.  This means that
      applications where coverage is important can be built.  For
      instance, most transport-sector applications require national or
      even worldwide coverage to work.

      But there are other implications as well.  By definition, the
      network is not tailored for this application, and, with some
      exceptions, the traffic passes through the Internet.  One
      implication of this is that there are generally no application-
      specific network configurations or discovery support.  For
      instance, the public network helps devices to get on the Internet,
      set up default routers, configure DNS servers, and so on, but does
      nothing for configuring possible higher-layer functions, such as
      servers that a device might need to contact to perform its
      application functions.

      Public networks often provide web proxies and other functionality
      that can, in some cases, make significant improvements related to
      delays and costs of communication over the wireless link.  For
      instance, resolving server DNS names in a proxy instead of the
      user's device may cut down on the general chattiness of the
      communications, therefore reducing overall delay in completing the
      entire transaction.  Likewise, a CoAP proxy or Publish-Subscribe
      (pub/sub) Broker [CoAP-PubSub] can assist a CoAP device in
      communication.  However, unlike HTTP web proxies, CoAP proxies and
      brokers are not yet widely deployed in public networks.

      Similarly, given the lack of available IPv4 addresses, chances are
      that many devices are behind a Network Address Translation (NAT)
      device.  This means that they are not easily reachable as servers.
      Alternatively, the devices may be directly on the global Internet
      (on either IPv4 or IPv6) and easily reachable as servers.
      Unfortunately, this may mean that they also receive unwanted
      traffic, which may have implications for both power consumption
      and service costs.

   *  Point-to-Point Link Model

      This is a common link model in cellular networks.  One implication
      of this model is that there will be no other nodes on the same
      link, except maybe for the service provider's router.  As a
      result, multicast discovery cannot be reasonably used for any
      local discovery purposes.  While the configuration of the service
      provider's router for specific users is theoretically possible,
      this is difficult to achieve in practice, at least for any small
      user that cannot afford a network-wide contract for a private APN
      (Access Point Name).  The public network access service has little
      per-user tailoring.

   *  Radio Technology

      The use of radio technology means that power is needed to operate
      the radios.  Transmission generally requires more power than
      reception.  However, radio protocols have generally been designed
      so that a device checks periodically to see whether it has
      messages.  In a situation where messages arrive seldom or not at
      all, this checking consumes energy.  Research has shown that these
      periodic checks (such as LTE paging message reception) are often a
      far bigger contributor to energy consumption than message

      Note that for situations where there are several applications on
      the same device wishing to communicate with the Internet in some
      manner, bundling those applications together so that they can
      communicate at the same time can be very useful.  Some guidance
      for these techniques in the smartphone context can be found in

   Naturally, each device has the freedom to decide when it sends
   messages.  In addition, we assume that there is some way for the
   devices to control when or how often they want to receive messages.
   Specific methods for doing this depend on the specific network being
   used and also tend to change as improvements in the design of these
   networks are incorporated.  The reception control methods generally
   come in two variants: (1) fine-grained mechanisms that deal with how
   often the device needs to wake up for paging messages and (2) cruder
   mechanisms where the device simply disconnects from the network for a
   period of time.  There are costs and benefits associated with each
   method, but those are not relevant for this memo, as long as some
   control method exists.  Furthermore, devices could use Delay-Tolerant
   Networking (DTN) mechanisms [RFC4838] to relax the requirements for
   timeliness of connectivity and message delivery.

4.  Scenarios

   Not all applications or situations are equal.  They may require
   different solutions or communication models.  This memo focuses on
   two common scenarios in cellular networks:

   *  Real-Time Reachable Devices

      This scenario involves all communication that requires real-time
      or near-real-time communications with a device.  That is, a
      network entity must be able to reach the device with a small time
      lag at any time, and no previously agreed-upon wake-up schedule
      can be arranged.  By "real-time", we mean any reasonable end-to-
      end communications latency, be it measured in milliseconds or
      seconds.  However, unpredictable sleep states are not expected.

      Examples of devices in this category include sensors that must be
      measurable from a remote source at any instant in time, such as
      process automation sensors and actuators that require immediate
      action, such as light bulbs or door locks.

   *  Sleepy Devices

      This scenario involves the freedom to choose when a device
      communicates.  The device is often expected to be able to be in a
      sleep state for much of its time.  The device itself can choose
      when it communicates, or it lets the network assist in this task.

      Examples of devices in this category include sensors that track
      slowly changing values, such as temperature sensors and actuators
      that control a relatively slow process, such as heating systems.

      Note that there may be hard real-time requirements, but they are
      expressed in terms of how fast the device can communicate -- not
      in terms of how fast it can respond to network stimuli.  For
      instance, a fire detector can be classified as a sleepy device as
      long as it can internally quickly wake up on detecting fire and
      initiate the necessary communications without delay.

5.  Discovery and Registration

   In both scenarios, the device will be attached to a public network.
   Without special arrangements, the device will also get a dynamically
   assigned IP address or an IPv6 prefix.  At least one but typically
   several router hops separate the device from its communicating peers
   such as application servers.  As a result, the address or even the
   existence of the device is typically not immediately obvious to the
   other nodes participating in the application.  As discussed earlier,
   multicast discovery has limited value in public networks; network
   nodes cannot practically discover individual devices in a large
   public network.  And the devices cannot discover who they need to
   talk to, as the public network offers just basic Internet

   Our recommendation is to initiate a discovery and registration
   process.  This allows each device to inform its peers that it has
   connected to the network and that it is reachable at a given IP
   address.  Registration also facilitates low-power operation, since a
   device can delegate part of the discovery signaling and reachability
   requirements to another node.

   The registration part is easy, e.g., with a resource directory.  The
   device should perform the necessary registration with such a resource
   directory -- for instance, as specified in [RFC9176].  In order to do
   this registration, the device needs to know its Constrained RESTful
   Environments (CoRE) Link Format description, as specified in
   [RFC6690].  In essence, the registration process involves performing
   a GET on .well-known/core/?rt=core-rd at the address of the resource
   directory and then doing a POST on the path of the discovered

   Other mechanisms enabling device discovery and delegation of
   functionality to a non-sleepy node include those discussed in
   [CoRE-Mirror] and [CoAP-PubSub].

   However, current CoAP specifications provide only limited support for
   discovering the resource directory or other registration services.
   Local multicast discovery only works in LAN-type networks; it does
   not work in the public cellular networks discussed in this document.
   We recommend the following alternate methods for discovery:

   *  Manual Configuration

      The DNS name of the resource directory is manually configured.
      This approach is suitable in situations where the owner of the
      devices has the resources and capabilities to do the
      configuration.  For instance, a utility company can typically
      program its metering devices to point to the company servers.

   *  Manufacturer Server

      The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the
      software by the manufacturer, and the directory or proxy is
      actually run by the manufacturer.  This approach is suitable in
      many consumer usage scenarios, where it would be unreasonable to
      assume that the consumer runs any specific network services.  The
      manufacturer's web interface and the directory/proxy servers can
      cooperate to provide the desired functionality to the end user.
      For instance, the end user can register a device identity in the
      manufacturer's web interface and ask that specific actions be
      taken when the device does something.

   *  Delegating Manufacturer Server

      The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the
      software by the manufacturer, but this directory or proxy merely
      redirects the request to a directory or proxy run by whoever
      bought the device.  This approach is suitable in many enterprise
      environments, as it allows the enterprise to be in charge of
      actual data collection and device registries; only the initial
      bootstrap goes through the manufacturer.  In many cases, there are
      even legal requirements (such as EU privacy laws) that prevent
      providing unnecessary information to third parties.

   *  Common Global Resolution Infrastructure

      The delegating manufacturer server model could be generalized into
      a reverse-DNS-like discovery infrastructure that could, for
      example, answer the question "This is a device with identity ID
      2456; where is my home registration server?"  However, at present,
      no such resolution system exists.  (Note: The EPCGlobal system for
      Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) resolution is reminiscent of
      this approach.)

   Besides manual configuration, these alternate mechanisms are mostly
   suitable for large manufacturers and deployments.  Good automated
   mechanisms for discovery of devices that are manufactured and
   deployed in small quantities are still needed.

6.  Data Formats

   A variety of data formats exist for passing around data.  These data
   formats include XML, JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC8259],
   Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) [W3C.REC-exi-20140211], Concise
   Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949], and various text
   formats.  Message lengths can have a significant effect on the amount
   of energy required for the communications, and as such it is highly
   desirable to keep message lengths minimal.  At the same time, extreme
   optimization can affect flexibility and ease of programming.  The
   authors recommend that readers refer to [RFC8428] for a compact but
   easily processed and extendable format.

7.  Real-Time Reachable Devices

   These devices are often best modeled as CoAP servers.  The device
   will have limited control over when it receives messages, and it will
   have to listen actively for messages, up to the limits of the
   underlying link layer.  If in some phase of its operation the device
   also acts in the role of a client, it can control how many
   transmissions it makes on its own behalf.

   The packet reception checks should be tailored according to the
   requirements of the application.  If sub-second response time is not
   needed, a more infrequent checking process may save some power.

   For sensor-type devices, the CoAP Observe extension (Observe option)
   [RFC7641] may be supported.  This allows the sensor to track changes
   to the sensed value and make an immediate observation response upon a
   change.  This may reduce the amount of polling needed to be done by
   the client.  Unfortunately, it does not reduce the time that the
   device needs to be listening for requests.  Subscription requests
   from clients other than the currently registered client may come in
   at any time, the current client may change its request, and the
   device still needs to respond to normal queries as a server.  As a
   result, the sensor cannot rely on having to communicate only on its
   own choice of observation interval.

   In order to act as a server, the device needs to be placed in a
   public IPv4 address, be reachable over IPv6, or be hosted in a
   private network.  If the device is hosted on a private network, then
   all other nodes that need to access this device also need to reside
   in the same private network.  There are multiple ways to provide
   private networks over public cellular networks.  One approach is to
   dedicate a special APN for the private network.  Corporate access via
   cellular networks has often been arranged in this manner, for
   instance.  Another approach is to use Virtual Private Network (VPN)
   technology -- for instance, IPsec-based VPNs.

   Power consumption from unwanted traffic is problematic in these
   devices, unless they are placed in a private network or protected by
   an operator-provided firewall service.  Devices on an IPv6 network
   will be afforded some protection due to the nature of the 2^64
   address allocation for a single terminal in a 3GPP cellular network;
   the attackers will be unable to guess the full IP address of the
   device.  However, this protects only the device from processing a
   packet, but since the network will still deliver the packet to any of
   the addresses within the assigned 64-bit prefix, packet reception
   costs are still incurred.

   Note that the VPN approach cannot prevent unwanted traffic received
   at the tunnel endpoint address and may require keep-alive traffic.
   Special APNs can solve this issue but require an explicit arrangement
   with the service provider.

8.  Sleepy Devices

   These devices are best modeled as devices that can delegate queries
   to some other node -- for instance, as mirror servers [CoRE-Mirror]
   or CoAP pub/sub Clients [CoAP-PubSub].  When the device initializes
   itself, it makes a registration of itself in a server or broker as
   described above in Section 5 and then continues to send periodic
   updates of sensor values.

   As a result, the device acts only as a client and not as a server,
   and can shut down all communication channels during its sleeping
   period.  The length of the sleeping period depends on power and
   application requirements.  Some environmental sensors might use a day
   or a week as the period, while other devices may use smaller values
   ranging from minutes to hours.

   The ability to shut down communications and act as only a client has
   four impacts:

   *  Radio transmission and reception can be turned off during the
      sleeping period, reducing power consumption significantly.

   *  However, some power and time are consumed by having to reattach to
      the network after the end of a sleep period.

   *  The window of opportunity for unwanted traffic to arrive is much
      smaller, as the device is listening for traffic only part of the
      time.  Note, however, that networks may cache packets for some
      time.  On the other hand, stateful firewalls can effectively
      remove much of the unwanted traffic for client-type devices.

   *  The device may exist behind a NAT or a firewall without being
      impacted.  Note that the "simple security" basic IPv6 firewall
      capability [RFC6092] blocks inbound UDP traffic by default, so
      just moving to IPv6 is not a direct solution to this problem.

   For sleepy devices that represent actuators, it is also possible to
   use the mirror server or pub/sub broker model.  A device can receive
   information from the server or broker about variable changes via
   either polling or notifications.

8.1.  Implementation Considerations

   There are several challenges related to implementing sleepy devices.
   They need hardware that can be placed in an appropriate sleep mode
   but awakened when it is time to do something again.  This is not
   always easy in all hardware platforms.  It is important to be able to
   shut down as much of the hardware as possible, preferably down to
   everything else except a clock circuit.  The platform also needs to
   support reawakening at suitable timescales, as otherwise the device
   needs to be powered up too frequently.

   Most commercial cellular modem platforms do not allow applications to
   suspend the state of the communications stack.  Hence, after a power-
   off period, they need to re-establish communications, which takes
   some amount of time and extra energy.

   Implementations should have a coordinated understanding of the state
   and sleeping schedule.  For instance, it makes no sense to keep a CPU
   powered up, waiting for a message when the lower layer has been told
   that the next possible paging opportunity is some time away.

   The cellular networks have a number of adjustable configuration
   parameters, such as the maximum used paging interval.  Proper
   settings of these values have an impact on the power consumption of
   the device, but with current business practices, such settings are
   rarely negotiated when the user's subscription is provisioned.

9.  Security Considerations

   There are no particular security aspects related to what has been
   discussed in this memo, except for the ability to delegate queries
   for a resource to another node.  Depending on how this is done, there
   are obvious security issues that have largely NOT yet been addressed
   in the relevant Internet-Drafts [CoRE-Mirror] [CoAP-Alive]
   [CoAP-Publ-Monitor].  However, we point out that, in general,
   security issues in delegation can be solved through either reliance
   on your local network support nodes (which may be quite reasonable in
   many environments) or explicit end-to-end security.  Explicit end-to-
   end security through nodes that are awake at different times means,
   in practice, end-to-end data object security.  We have implemented
   one such mechanism for sleepy nodes as described in [RFC8387].

   The security considerations relating to CoAP [RFC7252] and the
   relevant link layers should apply.  Note that cellular networks
   universally employ per-device authentication, integrity protection,
   and, for most of the world, encryption of all their communications.
   Additional protection of transport sessions is possible through
   mechanisms described in [RFC7252] or data objects.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,

   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,

   [RFC9176]  Amsüss, C., Ed., Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and
              P. van der Stok, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
              Resource Directory", RFC 9176, DOI 10.17487/RFC9176, April
              2022, <>.

              Schneider, J., Kamiya, T., Peintner, D., and R. Kyusakov,
              "Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0 (Second
              Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              exi-20140211, February 2014, <>.

   [RFC8428]  Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and C.
              Bormann, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)", RFC 8428,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8428, August 2018,

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
              R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
              Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
              April 2007, <>.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
              Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
              Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,

              Arkko, J., Rissanen, H., Loreto, S., Turanyi, Z., and O.
              Novo, "Implementing Tiny COAP Sensors", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-arkko-core-sleepy-sensors-01, 5 July
              2011, <

   [RFC8387]  Sethi, M., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and H. Back, "Practical
              Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing
              Smart Object Networks", RFC 8387, DOI 10.17487/RFC8387,
              May 2018, <>.

              Castellani, A. and S. Loreto, "CoAP Alive Message", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-castellani-core-alive-
              00, 29 March 2012, <

              Fossati, T., Giacomin, P., and S. Loreto, "Publish and
              Monitor Options for CoAP", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-fossati-core-publish-monitor-options-01, 10
              March 2012, <

              Vial, M., "CoRE Mirror Server", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-vial-core-mirror-proxy-01, 13 July
              2012, <

              Koster, M., Keranen, A., and J. Jimenez, "Publish-
              Subscribe Broker for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              core-coap-pubsub-10, 4 May 2022,

              "Optimize network access", Android developer note, May
              2022, <


   The authors would like to thank Zach Shelby, Jan Holler, Salvatore
   Loreto, Matthew Vial, Thomas Fossati, Mohit Sethi, Jan Melen, Joachim
   Sachs, Heidi-Maria Rissanen, Sebastien Pierrel, Kumar Balachandran,
   Muhammad Waqas Mir, Cullen Jennings, Markus Isomaki, Hannes
   Tschofenig, and Anna Larmo for interesting discussions in this
   problem space.

Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   FI-02420 Jorvas

   Anders Eriksson
   SE-164 83 Stockholm

   Ari Keränen
   FI-02420 Jorvas