CoRE Roadmap and Implementation Guide

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Carsten Bormann 
Last updated 2014-04-24 (latest revision 2013-10-21)
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


The CoRE set of protocols, in particular the CoAP protocol, is defined in draft-ietf-core-coap in conjunction with a number of specifications that are currently nearing completion. There are also several dozen more individual Internet-Drafts in various states of development, with various levels of WG review and interest. Today, this is simply a bewildering array of documents. Beyond the main four documents, it is hard to find relevant information and assess the status of proposals. At the level of Internet-Drafts, the IETF has only adoption as a WG document to assign status - too crude an instrument to assess the level of development and standing for anyone who does not follow the daily proceedings of the WG. With a more long-term perspective, as additional drafts mature and existing specifications enter various levels of spec maintenance, the entirety of these specifications may become harder to understand, pose specific implementation problems, or be simply inconsistent. The present guide aims to provide a roadmap to these documents as well as provide specific advice how to use these specifications in combination. In certain cases, it may provide clarifications or even corrections to the specifications referenced. This guide is intended as a continued work-in-progress, i.e. a long- lived Internet-Draft, to be updated whenever new information becomes available and new consensus on how to handle issues is formed. Similar to the ROHC implementation guide, RFC 4815, it might be published as an RFC at some future time later in the acceptance curve of the specifications. This document does not describe a new protocol or attempt to set a new standard of any kind - it mostly describes good practice in using the existing specifications, but it may also document emerging consensus where a correction needs to be made. (TODO: The present version does not completely cover the new Internet-Drafts submitted concurrently with it; it is to be updated by the start of IETF88.)


Carsten Bormann (

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)