Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-ietf-core-coap-12
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7252.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zach Shelby , Klaus Hartke , Carsten Bormann , Brian Frank | ||
| Last updated | 2012-10-01 | ||
| Replaces | draft-shelby-core-coap | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-16)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
GENART Last Call review
(of
-15)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
GENART Last Call review
(of
-14)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7252 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
| Send notices to | core-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-coap@tools.ietf.org |
draft-ietf-core-coap-12
CoRE Working Group Z. Shelby
Internet-Draft Sensinode
Intended status: Standards Track K. Hartke
Expires: April 4, 2013 C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
B. Frank
SkyFoundry
October 1, 2012
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
draft-ietf-core-coap-12
Abstract
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web
transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and constrained
(e.g., low-power, lossy) networks. The nodes often have 8-bit
microcontrollers with small amounts of ROM and RAM, while constrained
networks such as 6LoWPAN often have high packet error rates and a
typical throughput of 10s of kbit/s. The protocol is designed for
machine-to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and
building automation.
CoAP provides a request/response interaction model between
application endpoints, supports built-in discovery of services and
resources, and includes key concepts of the Web such as URIs and
Internet media types. CoAP easily interfaces with HTTP for
integration with the Web while meeting specialized requirements such
as multicast support, very low overhead and simplicity for
constrained environments.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 April 4, 2013.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1. Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Constrained Application Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1. Messaging Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2. Request/Response Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. Intermediaries and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4. Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3. Option Jump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4. Option Value Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.1. uint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.2. string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.3. opaque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.4. empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Message Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. Messages and Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2. Messages Transmitted Reliably . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Messages Transmitted Without Reliability . . . . . . . . 24
4.4. Message Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5. Message Deduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.6. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.7. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.8. Transmission Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.8.1. Changing The Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.8.2. Time Values derived from Transmission Parameters . . 29
5. Request/Response Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1. Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.2. Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.1. Piggy-backed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.2. Separate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.3. Non-Confirmable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3. Request/Response Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4.1. Critical/Elective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.4.2. Proxy Unsafe/Safe and Cache-Key . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.4.3. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.4. Default Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.5. Repeatable Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.6. Option Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5. Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5.1. Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.5.2. Diagnostic Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.6.1. Freshness Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.6.2. Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7. Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.7.1. Proxy Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.7.2. Forward-Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.7.3. Reverse-Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.8. Method Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.8.1. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.8.2. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.8.3. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.8.4. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.9. Response Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.9.1. Success 2.xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.9.2. Client Error 4.xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.9.3. Server Error 5.xx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.10. Option Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.10.1. Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.10.2. Uri-Host, Uri-Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query . . . . . 50
5.10.3. Proxy-Uri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.10.4. Content-Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.10.5. Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.10.6. Max-Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.10.7. ETag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.10.8. Location-Path and Location-Query . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.10.9. If-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.10.10. If-None-Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6. CoAP URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.1. coap URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.2. coaps URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.3. Normalization and Comparison Rules . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.4. Decomposing URIs into Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.5. Composing URIs from Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
7. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.1. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.2. Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2.1. 'ct' Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8. Multicast CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.1. Messaging Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8.2. Request/Response Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8.2.1. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.2.2. Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9. Securing CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.1. DTLS-secured CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
9.1.1. Messaging Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.1.2. Request/Response Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
9.1.3. Endpoint Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
9.2. Using CoAP with IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10. Cross-Protocol Proxying between CoAP and HTTP . . . . . . . . 68
10.1. CoAP-HTTP Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10.1.1. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.1.2. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.1.3. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.1.4. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2. HTTP-CoAP Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2.1. OPTIONS and TRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2.2. GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2.3. HEAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.2.4. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.2.5. PUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.2.6. DELETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10.2.7. CONNECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
11.1. Protocol Parsing, Processing URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11.2. Proxying and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11.3. Risk of amplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
11.4. IP Address Spoofing Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
11.5. Cross-Protocol Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
12.1. CoAP Code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
12.1.1. Method Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
12.1.2. Response Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
12.2. Option Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
12.3. Content-Format Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
12.4. URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
12.5. Secure URI Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
12.6. Service Name and Port Number Registration . . . . . . . . 86
12.7. Secure Service Name and Port Number Registration . . . . 87
12.8. Multicast Address Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Appendix B. URI Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix C. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
1. Introduction
The use of web services on the Internet has become ubiquitous in most
applications, and depends on the fundamental Representational State
Transfer [REST] architecture of the web.
The Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) work 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, [RFC4944]). Constrained networks like
6LoWPAN support the expensive fragmentation of IPv6 packets into
small link-layer frames. One design goal of CoAP has been to keep
message overhead small, thus limiting the use of fragmentation.
One of the main goals of CoAP is to design a generic web protocol for
the special requirements of this constrained environment, especially
considering energy, building automation and other machine-to-machine
(M2M) applications. The goal of CoAP is not to blindly compress HTTP
[RFC2616], but rather to realize a subset of REST common with HTTP
but optimized for M2M applications. Although CoAP could be used for
compressing simple HTTP interfaces, it more importantly also offers
features for M2M such as built-in discovery, multicast support and
asynchronous message exchanges.
This document specifies the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP),
which easily translates to HTTP for integration with the existing web
while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support,
very low overhead and simplicity for constrained environments and M2M
applications.
1.1. Features
CoAP has the following main features:
o Constrained web protocol fulfilling M2M requirements.
o UDP binding with optional reliability supporting unicast and
multicast requests.
o Asynchronous message exchanges.
o Low header overhead and parsing complexity.
o URI and Content-type support.
o Simple proxy and caching capabilities.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o A stateless HTTP mapping, allowing proxies to be built providing
access to CoAP resources via HTTP in a uniform way or for HTTP
simple interfaces to be realized alternatively over CoAP.
o Security binding to Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS).
1.2. 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] when they appear in ALL CAPS. These words may also appear
in this document in lower case as plain English words, absent their
normative meanings.
This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms
and concepts that are discussed in [RFC2616]. In addition, this
specification defines the following terminology:
Endpoint
An entity participating in the CoAP protocol. Colloquially, an
endpoint lives on a "Node", although "Host" would be more
consistent with Internet standards usage, and is further
identified by transport layer multiplexing information that can
include a UDP port number and a security association
(Section 4.1).
Sender
The originating endpoint of a message. When the aspect of
identification of the specific sender is in focus, also "source
endpoint".
Recipient
The destination endpoint of a message. When the aspect of
identification of the specific recipient is in focus, also
"destination endpoint".
Client
The originating endpoint of a request; the destination endpoint of
a response.
Server
The destination endpoint of a request; the originating endpoint of
a response.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Origin Server
The server on which a given resource resides or is to be created.
Intermediary
A CoAP endpoint that acts both as a server and as a client towards
(possibly via further intermediaries) an origin server. A common
form of an intermediary is a proxy; several classes of such
proxies are discussed in this specification.
Proxy
An intermediary that mainly is concerned with forwarding requests
and relaying back responses, possibly performing caching,
namespace translation, or protocol translation in the process. As
opposed to intermediaries in the general sense, proxies generally
do not implement specific application semantics. Based on the
position in the overall structure of the request forwarding, there
are two common forms of proxy: forward-proxy and reverse-proxy.
In some cases, a single endpoint might act as an origin server,
forward-proxy, or reverse-proxy, switching behavior based on the
nature of each request.
Forward-Proxy
A "forward-proxy" is an endpoint selected by a client, usually via
local configuration rules, to perform requests on behalf of the
client, doing any necessary translations. Some translations are
minimal, such as for proxy requests for "coap" URIs, whereas other
requests might require translation to and from entirely different
application-layer protocols.
Reverse-Proxy
A "reverse-proxy" is an endpoint that stands in for one or more
other server(s) and satisfies requests on behalf of these, doing
any necessary translations. Unlike a forward-proxy, the client
may not be aware that it is communicating with a reverse-proxy; a
reverse-proxy receives requests as if it was the origin server for
the target resource.
Cross-Proxy
A cross-protocol proxy, or "cross-proxy" for short, is a proxy
that translates between different protocols, such as a CoAP-to-
HTTP proxy or an HTTP-to-CoAP proxy. While this specification
makes very specific demands of CoAP-to-CoAP proxies, there is more
variation possible in cross-proxies.
Confirmable Message
Some messages require an acknowledgement. These messages are
called "Confirmable". When no packets are lost, each confirmable
message elicits exactly one return message of type Acknowledgement
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
or type Reset.
Non-Confirmable Message
Some other messages do not require an acknowledgement. This is
particularly true for messages that are repeated regularly for
application requirements, such as repeated readings from a sensor
where eventual success is sufficient.
Acknowledgement Message
An Acknowledgement message acknowledges that a specific
Confirmable Message arrived. It does not indicate success or
failure of any encapsulated request.
Reset Message
A Reset message indicates that a specific message (confirmable or
non-confirmable) was received, but some context is missing to
properly process it. This condition is usually caused when the
receiving node has rebooted and has forgotten some state that
would be required to interpret the message.
Piggy-backed Response
A Piggy-backed Response is included right in a CoAP
Acknowledgement (ACK) message that is sent to acknowledge receipt
of the Request for this Response (Section 5.2.1).
Separate Response
When a Confirmable message carrying a Request is acknowledged with
an empty message (e.g., because the server doesn't have the answer
right away), a Separate Response is sent in a separate message
exchange (Section 5.2.2).
Critical Option
An option that would need to be understood by the endpoint
receiving the message in order to properly process the message
(Section 5.4.1). Note that the implementation of critical options
is, as the name "Option" implies, generally optional: unsupported
critical options lead to an error response or summary rejection of
the message.
Elective Option
An option that is intended to be ignored by an endpoint that does
not understand it. Processing the message even without
understanding the option is acceptable (Section 5.4.1).
Unsafe Option
An option that would need to be understood by a proxy receiving
the message in order to safely forward the message
(Section 5.4.2).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Safe Option
An option that is intended to be safe for forwarding by a proxy
that does not understand it. Forwarding the message even without
understanding the option is acceptable (Section 5.4.2).
Resource Discovery
The process where a CoAP client queries a server for its list of
hosted resources (i.e., links, Section 7).
Content-Format
The combination of an Internet media type, potentially with
specific parameters given, and a content-coding (which is often
the identity content-coding), identified by a numeric identifier
defined by the CoAP Content-Format registry.
In this specification, the term "byte" is used in its now customary
sense as a synonym for "octet".
All multi-byte integers in this protocol are interpreted in network
byte order.
Where arithmetic is used, this specification uses the notation
familiar from the programming language C, except that the operator
"**" stands for exponentiation.
2. Constrained Application Protocol
The interaction model of CoAP is similar to the client/server model
of HTTP. However, machine-to-machine interactions typically result
in a CoAP implementation acting in both client and server roles. A
CoAP request is equivalent to that of HTTP, and is sent by a client
to request an action (using a method code) on a resource (identified
by a URI) on a server. The server then sends a response with a
response code; this response may include a resource representation.
Unlike HTTP, CoAP deals with these interchanges asynchronously over a
datagram-oriented transport such as UDP. This is done logically
using a layer of messages that supports optional reliability (with
exponential back-off). CoAP defines four types of messages:
Confirmable, Non-Confirmable, Acknowledgement, Reset; method codes
and response codes included in some of these messages make them carry
requests or responses. The basic exchanges of the four types of
messages are somewhat orthogonal to the request/response
interactions; requests can be carried in Confirmable and Non-
Confirmable messages, and responses can be carried in these as well
as piggy-backed in Acknowledgement messages.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
One could think of CoAP logically as using a two-layer approach, a
CoAP messaging layer used to deal with UDP and the asynchronous
nature of the interactions, and the request/response interactions
using Method and Response codes (see Figure 1). CoAP is however a
single protocol, with messaging and request/response just features of
the CoAP header.
+----------------------+
| Application |
+----------------------+
+----------------------+ \
| Requests/Responses | |
|----------------------| | CoAP
| Messages | |
+----------------------+ /
+----------------------+
| UDP |
+----------------------+
Figure 1: Abstract layering of CoAP
2.1. Messaging Model
The CoAP messaging model is based on the exchange of messages over
UDP between endpoints.
CoAP uses a short fixed-length binary header (4 bytes) that may be
followed by compact binary options and a payload. This message
format is shared by requests and responses. The CoAP message format
is specified in Section 3. Each message contains a Message ID used
to detect duplicates and for optional reliability.
Reliability is provided by marking a message as Confirmable (CON). A
Confirmable message is retransmitted using a default timeout and
exponential back-off between retransmissions, until the recipient
sends an Acknowledgement message (ACK) with the same Message ID (for
example, 0x7d34) from the corresponding endpoint; see Figure 2. When
a recipient is not at all able to process a Confirmable message
(i.e., not even able to provide a suitable error response), it
replies with a Reset message (RST) instead of an Acknowledgement
(ACK).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Client Server
| |
| CON [0x7d34] |
+----------------->|
| |
| ACK [0x7d34] |
|<-----------------+
| |
Figure 2: Reliable message transmission
A message that does not require reliable transmission, for example
each single measurement out of a stream of sensor data, can be sent
as a Non-confirmable message (NON). These are not acknowledged, but
still have a Message ID for duplicate detection; see Figure 3. When
a recipient is not able to process a Non-confirmable message, it may
reply with a Reset message (RST).
Client Server
| |
| NON [0x01a0] |
+----------------->|
| |
Figure 3: Unreliable message transmission
See Section 4 for details of CoAP messages.
As CoAP is based on UDP, it also supports the use of multicast IP
destination addresses, enabling multicast CoAP requests. Section 8
discusses the proper use of CoAP messages with multicast addresses
and precautions for avoiding response congestion.
Several security modes are defined for CoAP in Section 9 ranging from
no security to certificate-based security. The use of IPsec along
with a binding to DTLS are specified for securing the protocol.
2.2. Request/Response Model
CoAP request and response semantics are carried in CoAP messages,
which include either a Method code or Response code, respectively.
Optional (or default) request and response information, such as the
URI and payload media type are carried as CoAP options. A Token
Option is used to match responses to requests independently from the
underlying messages (Section 5.3).
A request is carried in a Confirmable (CON) or Non-confirmable (NON)
message, and if immediately available, the response to a request
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
carried in a Confirmable message is carried in the resulting
Acknowledgement (ACK) message. This is called a piggy-backed
response, detailed in Section 5.2.1. Two examples for a basic GET
request with piggy-backed response are shown in Figure 4, one
successful, one resulting in a 4.04 (Not Found) response.
Client Server Client Server
| | | |
| CON [0xbc90] | | CON [0xbc91] |
| GET /temperature | | GET /temperature |
| (Token 0x71) | | (Token 0x72) |
+----------------->| +----------------->|
| | | |
| ACK [0xbc90] | | ACK [0xbc91] |
| 2.05 Content | | 4.04 Not Found |
| (Token 0x71) | | (Token 0x72) |
| "22.5 C" | | "Not found" |
|<-----------------+ |<-----------------+
| | | |
Figure 4: Two GET requests with piggy-backed responses
If the server is not able to respond immediately to a request carried
in a Confirmable message, it simply responds with an empty
Acknowledgement message so that the client can stop retransmitting
the request. When the response is ready, the server sends it in a
new Confirmable message (which then in turn needs to be acknowledged
by the client). This is called a separate response, as illustrated
in Figure 5 and described in more detail in Section 5.2.2.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Client Server
| |
| CON [0x7a10] |
| GET /temperature |
| (Token 0x73) |
+----------------->|
| |
| ACK [0x7a10] |
|<-----------------+
| |
... Time Passes ...
| |
| CON [0x23bb] |
| 2.05 Content |
| (Token 0x73) |
| "22.5 C" |
|<-----------------+
| |
| ACK [0x23bb] |
+----------------->|
| |
Figure 5: A GET request with a separate response
Likewise, if a request is sent in a Non-Confirmable message, then the
response is usually sent using a new Non-Confirmable message,
although the server may send a Confirmable message. This type of
exchange is illustrated in Figure 6.
Client Server
| |
| NON [0x7a11] |
| GET /temperature |
| (Token 0x74) |
+----------------->|
| |
| NON [0x23bc] |
| 2.05 Content |
| (Token 0x74) |
| "22.5 C" |
|<-----------------+
| |
Figure 6: A NON request and response
CoAP makes use of GET, PUT, POST and DELETE methods in a similar
manner to HTTP, with the semantics specified in Section 5.8. (Note
that the detailed semantics of CoAP methods are "almost, but not
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
entirely unlike" those of HTTP methods: Intuition taken from HTTP
experience generally does apply well, but there are enough
differences that make it worthwhile to actually read the present
specification.)
URI support in a server is simplified as the client already parses
the URI and splits it into host, port, path and query components,
making use of default values for efficiency. Response codes
correspond to a small subset of HTTP response codes with a few CoAP
specific codes added, as defined in Section 5.9.
2.3. Intermediaries and Caching
The protocol supports the caching of responses in order to
efficiently fulfill requests. Simple caching is enabled using
freshness and validity information carried with CoAP responses. A
cache could be located in an endpoint or an intermediary. Caching
functionality is specified in Section 5.6.
Proxying is useful in constrained networks for several reasons,
including network traffic limiting, to improve performance, to access
resources of sleeping devices or for security reasons. The proxying
of requests on behalf of another CoAP endpoint is supported in the
protocol. When using a proxy, the URI of the resource to request is
included in the request, while the destination IP address is set to
the address of the proxy. See Section 5.7 for more information on
proxy functionality.
As CoAP was designed according to the REST architecture and thus
exhibits functionality similar to that of the HTTP protocol, it is
quite straightforward to map from CoAP to HTTP and from HTTP to CoAP.
Such a mapping may be used to realize an HTTP REST interface using
CoAP, or for converting between HTTP and CoAP. This conversion can
be carried out by a cross-protocol proxy ("cross-proxy"), which
converts the method or response code, media type, and options to the
corresponding HTTP feature. Section 10 provides more detail about
HTTP mapping.
2.4. Resource Discovery
Resource discovery is important for machine-to-machine interactions,
and is supported using the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] as discussed in
Section 7.
3. Message Format
CoAP is based on the exchange of short messages which, by default,
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
are transported over UDP (i.e. each CoAP message occupies the data
section of one UDP datagram). CoAP may also be used over Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) (see Section 9.1). It could also be
used over other transports such as SMS, TCP or SCTP, the
specification of which is out of this document's scope.
CoAP messages are encoded in a simple binary format. A message
consists of a fixed-sized CoAP Header followed by options in Type-
Length-Value (TLV) format and a payload. The number of options is
determined by the header. The payload is made up of the bytes after
the options, if any; its length is calculated from the datagram
length.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver| T | OC | Code | Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options (if any) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload (if any) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Message Format
3.1. Header Format
The fields in the header are defined as follows:
Version (Ver): 2-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the CoAP version
number. Implementations of this specification MUST set this field
to 1. Other values are reserved for future versions.
Type (T): 2-bit unsigned integer. Indicates if this message is of
type Confirmable (0), Non-Confirmable (1), Acknowledgement (2) or
Reset (3). See Section 4 for the semantics of these message
types.
Option Count (OC): 4-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the number of
options after the header (0-14). If set to 0, there are no
options and the payload (if any) immediately follows the header.
If set to 15, then an end-of-options marker is used to indicate
the end of options and the start of the payload. The format of
options is defined below.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Code: 8-bit unsigned integer. Indicates if the message carries a
request (1-31) or a response (64-191), or is empty (0). (All
other code values are reserved.) In case of a request, the Code
field indicates the Request Method; in case of a response a
Response Code. Possible values are maintained in the CoAP Code
Registry (Section 12.1). See Section 5 for the semantics of
requests and responses.
Message ID: 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte order. Used for
the detection of message duplication, and to match messages of
type Acknowledgement/Reset and messages of type Confirmable/
Non-confirmable. See Section 4 for Message ID generation rules
and how messages are matched.
3.2. Option Format
Options MUST appear in order of their Option Number (see
Section 5.4.6). A delta encoding is used between options: The Option
Number for each Option is calculated as the sum of its Option Delta
field and the Option Number of the preceding Option in the message,
if any. For the first Option in the message, the Option Delta
becomes the Option Number (i.e., an implementation can simply
initialize the number variable as zero). Multiple options with the
same Option Number can be included by using an Option Delta of zero.
The Option Jump mechanism (Section 3.3) is used when the delta to the
next option number is greater than 14.
Following the Option Delta, each option has a Length field which
specifies the length of the Option Value, in bytes. The Length field
can be extended for options with values longer than 14 bytes by
adding extension bytes. The maximum length for an option is 1034
bytes. The Option Value immediately follows the Length field.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
for 0..14:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Delta | Length |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Value ...
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
for 15..269:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Delta | 1 1 1 1 | Length - 15 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Value ...
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
for 270..524:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Delta | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Length - 270 | Option Value ...
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
for 525..779:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Delta | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | Length - 525 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Value ...
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
for 780..1034:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Delta | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Length - 780 | Option Value ...
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 8: Option Format
The fields in an option are defined as follows:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Option Delta: 4-bit unsigned integer. Indicates the difference
between the Option Number of this option and the previous option
(or zero for the first option). In other words, the Option Number
is calculated by simply summing the Option Delta fields of this
and previous options before it. The Option Delta 15 is reserved
for special constructs such as the end-of-options marker (see
below) and Option Jumps. The Option Jump mechanism (Section 3.3)
is used when the delta to the next option number is larger than
14.
Length: Indicates the length of the Option Value, in bytes.
Normally Length is a 4-bit unsigned integer allowing value lengths
of 0-14 bytes. When the Length field is set to 15, another byte
is added as an 8-bit unsigned integer whose value is added to the
15, allowing option value lengths of 15-270 bytes. For option
lengths beyond 270 bytes, we reserve the value 255 of an extension
byte to mean "add 255, read another extension byte". Options that
are longer than 1034 bytes MUST NOT be sent; an option that has
255 (all one bits) in the field called "Length - 780" MUST be
rejected upon reception as an encoding error.
Value: The length and format of the Option Value depends on the
respective option, which MAY define variable length values. See
Section 3.4 for the formats the options defined in this document
make use of; other options MAY make use of other option value
formats.
If the Option Count field in the CoAP header is 15 and the Option
Header byte is 0xf0 (the Option Delta is 15 and the Option Length is
0), the option is interpreted as the end-of-options marker instead of
the option with the resulting Option Number. (In other words, the
end-of-options marker always is just a single byte valued 0xf0.)
When this marker is encountered, it is immediately followed by the
payload (if any). (Note that, by this special meaning, the Option
Delta of 15 is made special, not any specific Option Number.) The
sender MUST NOT include the end-of-options marker in an Option in a
message with an Option Count other than 15; recipients MUST treat
this as an encoding error.
Option Numbers are maintained in the CoAP Option Number Registry
(Section 12.2). See Section 5.10 for the semantics of the options
defined in this document.
3.3. Option Jump
The following construct can occur in front of any Option:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 1 1 | 0 0 0 1 | 0xf1 (Delta = 15)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 0 | 0xf2
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Option Jump Value | (Delta/8)-2
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 1 | 0xf3
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |
+--- Option Jump Value ---+ (Delta/8)-258
| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 9: Option Jump Format
This construct is not by itself an Option. It can occur in front of
any Option to increase the current Option number that then goes into
its Option number calculation. The increase is done by 15 or in
multiples of eight. For the formats that include an Option Jump
Value, the actual addition to the current Option number is computed
as follows:
Delta = ((Option Jump Value) + N) * 8
where N is 2 for the one-byte version and N is 258 for the two-byte
version.
An Option Jump MUST be followed by an actual Option, i.e., it MUST
NOT be followed by another Option Jump or an end-of-options
indicator. A message violating this MUST be treated as an encoding
error.
Option Jumps do NOT count as Options in the Option Count field of the
header (i.e., they cannot by themselves end the Option sequence).
3.4. Option Value Formats
The options defined in this document make use of the following option
value formats.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
3.4.1. uint
A non-negative integer which is represented in network byte order
using the given number of bytes. An option definition may specify a
range of permissible numbers of bytes; if it has a choice, a sender
SHOULD represent the integer with as few bytes as possible, i.e.,
without leading zeros. A recipient MUST be prepared to process
values with leading zeros.
Implementation Note: The exceptional behavior permitted above is for
highly constrained templated implementations (e.g. hardware
implementations) that use fixed size options in the templates.
Length = 0 (implies value of 0)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length = 1 | 0-255 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length = 2 | 0-65535 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length = 3 is 24 bits, Length = 4 is 32 bits etc.
3.4.2. string
A Unicode string which is encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629] in Net-
Unicode form [RFC5198]. Note that here and in all other places where
UTF-8 encoding is used in the CoAP protocol, the intention is that
the encoded strings can be directly used and compared as opaque byte
strings by CoAP protocol implementations. There is no expectation
and no need to perform normalization within a CoAP implementation
unless Unicode strings that are not known to be normalized are
imported from sources outside the CoAP protocol. Note also that
ASCII strings (that do not make use of special control characters)
are always valid UTF-8 Net-Unicode strings.
3.4.3. opaque
An opaque sequence of bytes.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
3.4.4. empty
A zero-length sequence of bytes.
4. Message Transmission
CoAP messages are exchanged asynchronously between CoAP endpoints.
They are used to transport CoAP requests and responses, the semantics
of which are defined in Section 5.
As CoAP is bound to non-reliable transports such as UDP, CoAP
messages may arrive out of order, appear duplicated, or go missing
without notice. For this reason, CoAP implements a lightweight
reliability mechanism, without trying to re-create the full feature
set of a transport like TCP. It has the following features:
o Simple stop-and-wait retransmission reliability with exponential
back-off for Confirmable messages.
o Duplicate detection for both Confirmable and Non-confirmable
messages.
4.1. Messages and Endpoints
A CoAP endpoint is the source or destination of a CoAP message. It
is identified depending on the security mode used (see Section 9):
With no security, the endpoint is solely identified by an IP address
and a UDP port number. With other security modes, the endpoint is
identified as defined by the security mode.
There are different types of messages. The type of a message is
specified by the T field of the CoAP header.
Separate from the message type, a message may carry a request, a
response, or be empty. This is signaled by the Code field in the
CoAP header and is relevant to the request/response model. Possible
values for the Code field are maintained by the CoAP Code Registry
(Section 12.1).
An empty message has the Code field set to 0. The OC field SHOULD be
set to 0 and no bytes SHOULD be present after the Message ID field.
The OC field and any bytes trailing the header MUST be ignored by any
recipient.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
4.2. Messages Transmitted Reliably
The reliable transmission of a message is initiated by marking the
message as Confirmable in the CoAP header. A Confirmable message
always carries either a request or response and MUST NOT be empty. A
recipient MUST acknowledge such a message with an Acknowledgement
message or, if it lacks context to process the message properly
(including the case where the message is empty or has an encoding
error), MUST reject it; rejecting a Confirmable message is effected
by sending a matching Reset message and otherwise ignoring it. The
Acknowledgement message MUST echo the Message ID of the Confirmable
message, and MUST carry a response or be empty (see Section 5.2.1 and
Section 5.2.2). The Reset message MUST echo the Message ID of the
confirmable message, and MUST be empty. Rejecting an Acknowledgement
or Reset message is effected by silently ignoring it.
The sender retransmits the Confirmable message at exponentially
increasing intervals, until it receives an acknowledgement (or Reset
message), or runs out of attempts.
Retransmission is controlled by two things that a CoAP endpoint MUST
keep track of for each Confirmable message it sends while waiting for
an acknowledgement (or reset): a timeout and a retransmission
counter. For a new Confirmable message, the initial timeout is set
to a random number between ACK_TIMEOUT and (ACK_TIMEOUT *
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR) (see Section 4.8), and the retransmission counter
is set to 0. When the timeout is triggered and the retransmission
counter is less than MAX_RETRANSMIT, the message is retransmitted,
the retransmission counter is incremented, and the timeout is
doubled. If the retransmission counter reaches MAX_RETRANSMIT on a
timeout, or if the endpoint receives a Reset message, then the
attempt to transmit the message is canceled and the application
process informed of failure. On the other hand, if the endpoint
receives an acknowledgement message in time, transmission is
considered successful.
A CoAP endpoint that sent a Confirmable message MAY give up in
attempting to obtain an ACK even before the MAX_RETRANSMIT counter
value is reached: E.g., the application has canceled the request as
it no longer needs a response, or there is some other indication that
the CON message did arrive. In particular, a CoAP request message
may have elicited a separate response, in which case it is clear to
the requester that only the ACK was lost and a retransmission of the
request would serve no purpose. However, a responder MUST NOT in
turn rely on this cross-layer behavior from a requester, i.e. it
SHOULD retain the state to create the ACK for the request, if needed,
even if a Confirmable response was already acknowledged by the
requester.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
4.3. Messages Transmitted Without Reliability
Some messages do not require an acknowledgement. This is
particularly true for messages that are repeated regularly for
application requirements, such as repeated readings from a sensor
where eventual success is sufficient.
As a more lightweight alternative, a message can be transmitted less
reliably by marking the message as Non-confirmable. A Non-
confirmable message always carries either a request or response and
MUST NOT be empty. A Non-confirmable message MUST NOT be
acknowledged by the recipient. If a recipient lacks context to
process the message properly (including the case where the message is
empty or has an encoding error), it MUST reject the message;
rejecting a Non-Confirmable message MAY involve sending a matching
Reset message, and apart from the Reset message the rejected message
MUST be silently ignored.
At the CoAP level, there is no way for the sender to detect if a Non-
confirmable message was received or not. A sender MAY choose to
transmit multiple copies of a Non-confirmable message within
MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN, or the network may duplicate the message in
transit. To enable the receiver to act only once on the message,
Non-confirmable messages specify a Message ID as well. (This Message
ID is drawn from the same number space as the Message IDs for
Confirmable messages.)
4.4. Message Correlation
An Acknowledgement or Reset message is related to a Confirmable
message or Non-confirmable message by means of a Message ID along
with additional address information of the corresponding endpoint.
The Message ID is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is generated by the
sender of a Confirmable or Non-confirmable message and included in
the CoAP header. The Message ID MUST be echoed in the
Acknowledgement or Reset message by the recipient.
The same Message ID MUST NOT be re-used (in communicating with the
same endpoint) within the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2).
Implementation Note: Several implementation strategies can be
employed for generating Message IDs. In the simplest case a CoAP
endpoint generates Message IDs by keeping a single Message ID
variable, which is changed each time a new confirmable or non-
confirmable message is sent regardless of the destination address
or port. Endpoints dealing with large numbers of transactions
could keep multiple Message ID variables, for example per prefix
or destination address. The initial variable value should be
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
randomized.
For an Acknowledgement or Reset message to match a Confirmable or
Non-confirmable message, the Message ID and source endpoint of the
Acknowledgement or Reset message MUST match the Message ID and
destination endpoint of the Confirmable or Non-confirmable message.
4.5. Message Deduplication
A recipient MUST be prepared to receive the same Confirmable message
(as indicated by the Message ID and source endpoint) multiple times
within the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2), for example, when its
Acknowledgement went missing or didn't reach the original sender
before the first timeout. The recipient SHOULD acknowledge each
duplicate copy of a Confirmable message using the same
Acknowledgement or Reset message, but SHOULD process any request or
response in the message only once. This rule MAY be relaxed in case
the Confirmable message transports a request that is idempotent (see
Section 5.1) or can be handled in an idempotent fashion. Examples
for relaxed message deduplication:
o A server MAY relax the requirement to answer all retransmissions
of an idempotent request with the same response (Section 4.2), so
that it does not have to maintain state for Message IDs. For
example, an implementation might want to process duplicate
transmissions of a GET, PUT or DELETE request as separate requests
if the effort incurred by duplicate processing is less expensive
than keeping track of previous responses would be.
o A constrained server MAY even want to relax this requirement for
certain non-idempotent requests if the application semantics make
this trade-off favorable. For example, if the result of a POST
request is just the creation of some short-lived state at the
server, it may be less expensive to incur this effort multiple
times for a request than keeping track of whether a previous
transmission of the same request already was processed.
A recipient MUST be prepared to receive the same Non-confirmable
message (as indicated by the Message ID and source endpoint) multiple
times within NON_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2). As a general rule that
may be relaxed based on the specific semantics of a message, the
recipient SHOULD silently ignore any duplicated Non-confirmable
message, and SHOULD process any request or response in the message
only once.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
4.6. Message Size
While specific link layers make it beneficial to keep CoAP messages
small enough to fit into their link layer packets (see Section 1),
this is a matter of implementation quality. The CoAP specification
itself provides only an upper bound to the message size. Messages
larger than an IP fragment result in undesired packet fragmentation.
A CoAP message, appropriately encapsulated, SHOULD fit within a
single IP packet (i.e., avoid IP fragmentation) and (by fitting into
one UDP payload) obviously MUST fit within a single IP datagram. If
the Path MTU is not known for a destination, an IP MTU of 1280 bytes
SHOULD be assumed; if nothing is known about the size of the headers,
good upper bounds are 1152 bytes for the message size and 1024 bytes
for the payload size.
Implementation Note: CoAP's choice of message size parameters works
well with IPv6 and with most of today's IPv4 paths. (However,
with IPv4, it is harder to absolutely ensure that there is no IP
fragmentation. If IPv4 support on unusual networks is a
consideration, implementations may want to limit themselves to
more conservative IPv4 datagram sizes such as 576 bytes; worse,
the absolute minimum value of the IP MTU for IPv4 is as low as 68
bytes, which would leave only 40 bytes minus security overhead for
a UDP payload. Implementations extremely focused on this problem
set might also set the IPv4 DF bit and perform some form of path
MTU discovery; this should generally be unnecessary in most
realistic use cases for CoAP, however.) A more important kind of
fragmentation in many constrained networks is that on the
adaptation layer (e.g., 6LoWPAN L2 packets are limited to 127
bytes including various overheads); this may motivate
implementations to be frugal in their packet sizes and to move to
block-wise transfers [I-D.ietf-core-block] when approaching three-
digit message sizes.
Message sizes are also of considerable importance to
implementations on constrained nodes. Many implementations will
need to allocate a buffer for incoming messages. If an
implementation is too constrained to allow for allocating the
above-mentioned upper bound, it could apply the following
implementation strategy: Implementations receiving a datagram into
a buffer that is too small are usually able to determine if the
trailing portion of a datagram was discarded and to retrieve the
initial portion. So, if not all of the payload, at least the CoAP
header and options are likely to fit within the buffer. A server
can thus fully interpret a request and return a 4.13 (Request
Entity Too Large) response code if the payload was truncated. A
client sending an idempotent request and receiving a response
larger than would fit in the buffer can repeat the request with a
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
suitable value for the Block Option [I-D.ietf-core-block].
4.7. Congestion Control
Basic congestion control for CoAP is provided by the exponential
back-off mechanism in Section 4.2.
In order not to cause congestion, Clients (including proxies) MUST
strictly limit the number of simultaneous outstanding interactions
that they maintain to a given server (including proxies) to NSTART.
An outstanding interaction is either a CON for which an ACK has not
yet been received but is still expected (message layer) or a request
for which neither a response nor an Acknowledgment message has yet
been received but is still expected (which may both occur at the same
time, counting as one outstanding interaction). The default value of
NSTART for this specification is 1.
Further congestion control optimizations and considerations are
expected in the future, which may for example provide automatic
initialization of the CoAP transmission parameters defined in
Section 4.8, and thus may allow a value for NSTART greater than one.
A client stops expecting a response to a Confirmable request for
which no acknowledgment message was received, after
EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. The specific algorithm by which a client stops to
"expect" a response to a Confirmable request that was acknowledged,
or to a Non-confirmable request, is not defined. Unless this is
modified by additional congestion control optimizations, it MUST be
chosen in such a way that an endpoint does not exceed an average data
rate of PROBING_RATE in sending to another endpoint that does not
respond.
Note: CoAP places the onus of congestion control mostly on the
clients. However, clients may malfunction or actually be
attackers, e.g. to perform amplification attacks (Section 11.3).
To limit the damage (to the network and to its own energy
resources), a server SHOULD implement some rate limiting for its
response transmission based on reasonable assumptions about
application requirements. This is most helpful if the rate limit
can be made effective for the misbehaving endpoints, only.
4.8. Transmission Parameters
Message transmission is controlled by the following parameters:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
+-------------------+---------------+
| name | default value |
+-------------------+---------------+
| ACK_TIMEOUT | 2 seconds |
| ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR | 1.5 |
| MAX_RETRANSMIT | 4 |
| NSTART | 1 |
| DEFAULT_LEISURE | 5 seconds |
| PROBING_RATE | 1 Byte/second |
+-------------------+---------------+
4.8.1. Changing The Parameters
The values for ACK_TIMEOUT, ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR, MAX_RETRANSMIT,
NSTART, DEFAULT_LEISURE, and PROBING_RATE may be configured to values
specific to the application environment (including dynamically
adjusted values), however the configuration method is out of scope of
this document. It is recommended that an application environment use
consistent values for these parameters.
The transmission parameters have been chosen to achieve a behavior in
the presence of congestion that is safe in the Internet. If a
configuration desires to use different values, the onus is on the
configuration to ensure these congestion control properties are not
violated. In particular, a decrease of ACK_TIMEOUT below 1 second
would violate the guidelines of [RFC5405].
([I-D.allman-tcpm-rto-consider] provides some additional background.)
CoAP was designed to enable implementations that do not maintain
round-trip-time (RTT) measurements. However, where it is desired to
decrease the ACK_TIMEOUT significantly or increase NSTART, this can
only be done safely when maintaining such measurements.
Configurations MUST NOT decrease ACK_TIMEOUT or increase NSTART
without using mechanisms that ensure congestion control safety,
either defined in the configuration or in future standards documents.
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR MUST NOT be decreased below 1.0, and it SHOULD have
a value that is sufficiently different from 1.0 to provide some
protection from synchronization effects.
MAX_RETRANSMIT can be freely adjusted, but a too small value will
reduce the probability that a confirmable message is actually
received, while a larger value than given here will require further
adjustments in the time values (see discussion below).
If the choice of transmission parameters leads to an increase of
derived time values (see below), the configuration mechanism MUST
ensure the adjusted value is also available to all the endpoints in
communicating with which these adjusted values are to be used.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
4.8.2. Time Values derived from Transmission Parameters
The combination of ACK_TIMEOUT, ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR and MAX_RETRANSMIT
influences the timing of retransmissions, which in turn influences
how long certain information items need to be kept by an
implementation. To be able to unambiguously reference these derived
time values, we give them names as follows:
o MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN is the maximum time from the first transmission
of a confirmable message to its last retransmission. For the
default transmission parameters, the value is (2+4+8+16)*1.5 = 45
seconds, or more generally:
ACK_TIMEOUT * (2 ** MAX_RETRANSMIT - 1) * ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR
o MAX_TRANSMIT_WAIT is the maximum time from the first transmission
of a confirmable message to the time when the sender gives up on
receiving an acknowledgement or reset. For the default
transmission parameters, the value is (2+4+8+16+32)*1.5 = 93
seconds, or more generally:
ACK_TIMEOUT * (2 ** (MAX_RETRANSMIT + 1) - 1) *
ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR
In addition, some assumptions need to be made on the characteristics
of the network and the nodes.
o MAX_LATENCY is the maximum time a datagram is expected to take
from the start of its transmission to the completion of its
reception. This constant is related to the MSL (Maximum Segment
Lifetime) of [RFC0793], which is "arbitrarily defined to be 2
minutes" ([RFC0793] glossary, page 81). Note that this is not
necessarily smaller than MAX_TRANSMIT_WAIT, as MAX_LATENCY is not
intended to describe a situation when the protocol works well, but
the worst case situation against which the protocol has to guard.
We, also arbitrarily, define MAX_LATENCY to be 100 seconds. Apart
from being reasonably realistic for the bulk of configurations as
well as close to the historic choice for TCP, this value also
allows message ID lifetime timers to be represented in 8 bits
(when measured in seconds). In these calculations, there is no
assumption that the direction of the transmission is irrelevant
(i.e. that the network is symmetric), just that the same value can
reasonably be used as a maximum value for both directions. If
that is not the case, the following calculations become only
slightly more complex.
o PROCESSING_DELAY is the time a node takes to turn around a
confirmable message into an acknowledgement. We assume the node
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
will attempt to send an ACK before having the sender time out, so
as a conservative assumption we set it equal to ACK_TIMEOUT.
o MAX_RTT is the maximum round-trip time, or:
2 * MAX_LATENCY + PROCESSING_DELAY
From these values, we can derive the following values relevant to the
protocol operation:
o EXCHANGE_LIFETIME is the time from starting to send a confirmable
message to the time when an acknowledgement is no longer expected,
i.e. message layer information about the message exchange can be
purged. EXCHANGE_LIFETIME includes a MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN, a
MAX_LATENCY forward, PROCESSING_DELAY, and a MAX_LATENCY for the
way back. Note that there is no need to consider
MAX_TRANSMIT_WAIT if the configuration is chosen such that the
last waiting period (ACK_TIMEOUT * (2 ** MAX_RETRANSMIT) or the
difference between MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN and MAX_TRANSMIT_WAIT) is
less than MAX_LATENCY -- which is a likely choice, as MAX_LATENCY
is a worst case value unlikely to be met in the real world. In
this case, EXCHANGE_LIFETIME simplifies to:
(ACK_TIMEOUT * (2 ** MAX_RETRANSMIT - 1) * ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR) +
(2 * MAX_LATENCY) + PROCESSING_DELAY
or 248 seconds with the default transmission parameters.
o NON_LIFETIME is the time from sending a non-confirmable message to
the time its message-ID can be safely reused. If multiple
transmission of a NON message is not used, its value is
MAX_LATENCY, or 100 seconds. However, a CoAP sender might send a
NON message multiple times, in particular for multicast
applications. While the period of re-use is not bounded by the
specification, an expectation of reliable detection of duplication
at the receiver is in the timescales of MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN.
Therefore, for this purpose, it is safer to use the value:
MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN + MAX_LATENCY
or 145 seconds with the default transmission parameters; however,
an implementation that just wants to use a single timeout value
for retiring message-IDs can safely use the larger value for
EXCHANGE_LIFETIME.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5. Request/Response Semantics
CoAP operates under a similar request/response model as HTTP: a CoAP
endpoint in the role of a "client" sends one or more CoAP requests to
a "server", which services the requests by sending CoAP responses.
Unlike HTTP, requests and responses are not sent over a previously
established connection, but exchanged asynchronously over CoAP
messages.
5.1. Requests
A CoAP request consists of the method to be applied to the resource,
the identifier of the resource, a payload and Internet media type (if
any), and optional meta-data about the request.
CoAP supports the basic methods of GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, which are
easily mapped to HTTP. They have the same properties of safe (only
retrieval) and idempotent (you can invoke it multiple times with the
same effects) as HTTP (see Section 9.1 of [RFC2616]). The GET method
is safe, therefore it MUST NOT take any other action on a resource
other than retrieval. The GET, PUT and DELETE methods MUST be
performed in such a way that they are idempotent. POST is not
idempotent, because its effect is determined by the origin server and
dependent on the target resource; it usually results in a new
resource being created or the target resource being updated.
A request is initiated by setting the Code field in the CoAP header
of a Confirmable or a Non-confirmable message to a Method Code and
including request information.
The methods used in requests are described in detail in Section 5.8.
5.2. Responses
After receiving and interpreting a request, a server responds with a
CoAP response, which is matched to the request by means of a client-
generated token.
A response is identified by the Code field in the CoAP header being
set to a Response Code. Similar to the HTTP Status Code, the CoAP
Response Code indicates the result of the attempt to understand and
satisfy the request. These codes are fully defined in Section 5.9.
The Response Code numbers to be set in the Code field of the CoAP
header are maintained in the CoAP Response Code Registry
(Section 12.1.2).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|class| detail |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Structure of a Response Code
The upper three bits of the 8-bit Response Code number define the
class of response. The lower five bits do not have any
categorization role; they give additional detail to the overall class
(Figure 10). There are 3 classes:
2 - Success: The request was successfully received, understood, and
accepted.
4 - Client Error: The request contains bad syntax or cannot be
fulfilled.
5 - Server Error: The server failed to fulfill an apparently valid
request.
The response codes are designed to be extensible: Response Codes in
the Client Error and Server Error class that are unrecognized by an
endpoint MUST be treated as being equivalent to the generic Response
Code of that class (4.00 and 5.00, respectively). However, there is
no generic Response Code indicating success, so a Response Code in
the Success class that is unrecognized by an endpoint can only be
used to determine that the request was successful without any further
details.
As a human readable notation for specifications and protocol
diagnostics, the numeric value of a response code is indicated by
giving the upper three bits in decimal, followed by a dot and then
the lower five bits in a two-digit decimal. E.g., "Not Found" is
written as 4.04 -- indicating a value of hexadecimal 0x84 or decimal
132. In other words, the dot "." functions as a short-cut for
"*32+".
The possible response codes are described in detail in Section 5.9.
Responses can be sent in multiple ways, which are defined below.
5.2.1. Piggy-backed
In the most basic case, the response is carried directly in the
Acknowledgement message that acknowledges the request (which requires
that the request was carried in a Confirmable message). This is
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
called a "Piggy-backed" Response.
The response is returned in the Acknowledgement message independent
of whether the response indicates success or failure. In effect, the
response is piggy-backed on the Acknowledgement message, so no
separate message is required to both acknowledge that the request was
received and return the response.
Implementation Note: The protocol leaves the decision whether to
piggy-back a response or not (i.e., send a separate response) to
the server. The client MUST be prepared to receive either. On
the quality of implementation level, there is a strong expectation
that servers will implement code to piggy-back whenever possible
-- saving resources in the network and both at the client and at
the server.
5.2.2. Separate
It may not be possible to return a piggy-backed response in all
cases. For example, a server might need longer to obtain the
representation of the resource requested than it can wait sending
back the Acknowledgement message, without risking the client to
repeatedly retransmit the request message. Responses to requests
carried in a Non-Confirmable message are always sent separately (as
there is no Acknowledgement message).
The server maybe initiates the attempt to obtain the resource
representation and times out an acknowledgement timer, or it
immediately sends an acknowledgement knowing in advance that there
will be no piggy-backed response. The acknowledgement effectively is
a promise that the request will be acted upon.
When the server finally has obtained the resource representation, it
sends the response. When it is desired that this message is not
lost, it is sent as a Confirmable message from the server to the
client and answered by the client with an Acknowledgement, echoing
the new Message ID chosen by the server. (It may also be sent as a
Non-Confirmable message; see Section 5.2.3.)
Implementation Notes: Note that, as the underlying datagram
transport may not be sequence-preserving, the Confirmable message
carrying the response may actually arrive before or after the
acknowledgement message for the request. Note also that, while
the CoAP protocol itself does not make any specific demands here,
there is an expectation that the response will come within a time
frame that is reasonable from an application point of view; as
there is no underlying transport protocol that could be instructed
to run a keep-alive mechanism, the requester MAY want to set up a
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
timeout that is unrelated to CoAP's retransmission timers in case
the server is destroyed or otherwise unable to send the response.)
An exchange is separate by definition when the Acknowledgement to the
Confirmable request is an empty message. The Acknowledgement to the
Confirmable response MUST also be an empty message, i.e. one that
carries neither a request nor a response. However, a server MUST
stop retransmitting its response on any matching Acknowledgement
(silently ignoring any response code or payload) or Reset message.
5.2.3. Non-Confirmable
If the request message is Non-confirmable, then the response SHOULD
be returned in a Non-confirmable message as well. However, an
endpoint MUST be prepared to receive a Non-confirmable response
(preceded or followed by an empty acknowledgement message) in reply
to a Confirmable request, or a Confirmable response in reply to a
Non-confirmable request.
5.3. Request/Response Matching
Regardless of how a response is sent, it is matched to the request by
means of a token that is included by the client in the request as one
of the options along with additional address information of the
corresponding endpoint. The token MUST be echoed by the server in
any resulting response without modification.
The exact rules for matching a response to a request are as follows:
1. The source endpoint of the response MUST be the same as the
destination endpoint of the original request.
2. In a piggy-backed response, both the Message ID of the
Confirmable request and the Acknowledgement, and the token of the
response and original request MUST match. In a separate
response, just the token of the response and original request
MUST match.
The client SHOULD generate tokens in a way that tokens currently in
use for a given source/destination pair are unique. (Note that a
client can use the same token for any request if it uses a different
source port number each time.)
An endpoint that did not generate a token MUST treat it as opaque and
make no assumptions about its format. (Note that there is a default
value for the Token Option, so every message carries a token, even if
it is not explicitly expressed in a CoAP option.)
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
In case a message carrying a response is unexpected (i.e. the client
is not waiting for a response at the endpoint addressed and/or with
the given token), the response is rejected (Section 4.2,
Section 4.3).
Implementation Note: A client that receives a response in a CON
message may want to clean up the message state right after sending
the ACK. If that ACK is lost and the server retransmits the CON,
the client may no longer have any state to correlate this response
to, making the retransmission an unexpected message; the client
may send a Reset message so it does not receive any more
retransmissions. This behavior is normal and not an indication of
an error. (Clients that are not aggressively optimized in their
state memory usage will still have message state that will
identify the second CON as a retransmission. Clients that
actually expect more messages from the server
[I-D.ietf-core-observe] will have to keep state in any case.)
5.4. Options
Both requests and responses may include a list of one or more
options. For example, the URI in a request is transported in several
options, and meta-data that would be carried in an HTTP header in
HTTP is supplied as options as well.
CoAP defines a single set of options that are used in both requests
and responses:
o Content-Format
o ETag
o Location-Path
o Location-Query
o Max-Age
o Proxy-Uri
o Token
o Uri-Host
o Uri-Path
o Uri-Port
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Uri-Query
o Accept
o If-Match
o If-None-Match
The semantics of these options along with their properties are
defined in detail in Section 5.10.
Not all options are defined for use with all methods and response
codes. The possible options for methods and response codes are
defined in Section 5.8 and Section 5.9 respectively. In case an
option is not defined for a method or response code, it MUST NOT be
included by a sender and MUST be treated like an unrecognized option
by a recipient.
An Option number is constructed with a bit mask to indicate if an
option is Critical/Elective, Unsafe/Safe and in the case of Safe,
also a Cache-Key as indicated by the following figure. When bit 7
(the least significant bit) is 1, an option is Critical (and likewise
Elective when 0). When bit 6 is 1, an option is Unsafe (and likewise
Safe when 0). When an option is not Unsafe, it is not a Cache-Key
(NoCacheKey) if and only if bits 3-5 are all set to 1; all other bit
combinations mean that it indeed is a Cache-Key. These classes of
options are explained in the next sections.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | NoCacheKey| U | C |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 11: Option Number Mask
An endpoint may use an equivalent of the following C code to derive
the characteristics of an option number "onum":
Critical = (onum & 1);
UnSafe = (onum & 2);
NoCacheKey = ((onum & 0x1e) == 0x1c);
Figure 12
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.4.1. Critical/Elective
Options fall into one of two classes: "critical" or "elective". The
difference between these is how an option unrecognized by an endpoint
is handled:
o Upon reception, unrecognized options of class "elective" MUST be
silently ignored.
o Unrecognized options of class "critical" that occur in a
confirmable request MUST cause the return of a 4.02 (Bad Option)
response. This response SHOULD include a diagnostic message
describing the unrecognized option(s) (see Section 5.5.2).
o Unrecognized options of class "critical" that occur in a
confirmable response, or piggy-backed in an acknowledgement, MUST
cause the response to be rejected (Section 4.2).
o Unrecognized options of class "critical" that occur in a non-
confirmable message MUST cause the message to be rejected
(Section 4.3).
Note that, whether critical or elective, an option is never
"mandatory" (it is always optional): These rules are defined in order
to enable implementations to stop processing options they do not
understand or implement.
Critical/Elective rules apply to non-proxying endpoints. A proxy
processes options based on Unsafe/Safe classes as defined in
Section 5.7.
5.4.2. Proxy Unsafe/Safe and Cache-Key
In addition to an option being marked as Critical or Elective,
options are also classified based on how a proxy is to deal with the
option if it does not recognize it. For this purpose, an option can
either be considered Unsafe to Forward (UnSafe is set) or Safe to
Forward (UnSafe is clear).
In addition, for options that are marked Safe to Forward, the option
indicates whether it is intended to be part of the Cache-Key in a
request (NoCacheKey is not all set) or not (NoCacheKey is set).
Note: The Cache-Key indication is relevant only for proxies that do
not implement the given option as a request option and instead
rely on the Safe/Unsafe indication only. E.g., for ETag, actually
using the request option as a cache key is grossly inefficient,
but it is the best thing one can do if ETag is not implemented by
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
a proxy, as the reponse is going to differ based on the presence
of the request option. A more useful proxy that does implement
the ETag request option is not using ETag as a cache key.
Proxy behavior with regard to these classes is defined in
Section 5.7.
5.4.3. Length
Option values are defined to have a specific length, often in the
form of an upper and lower bound. If the length of an option value
in a request is outside the defined range, that option MUST be
treated like an unrecognized option (see Section 5.4.1).
5.4.4. Default Values
Options may be defined to have a default value. If the value of
option is intended to be this default value, the option SHOULD NOT be
included in the message. If the option is not present, the default
value MUST be assumed.
Where a critical option has a default value, this is chosen in such a
way that the absence of the option in a message can be processed
properly both by implementations unaware of the critical option and
by implementations that interpret this absence as the presence of the
default value for the option.
5.4.5. Repeatable Options
The definition of an option MAY specify the option to be repeatable.
An option that is repeatable MAY be included one or more times in a
message. An option that is not repeatable MUST NOT be included more
than once in a message.
If a message includes an option with more occurrences than the option
is defined for, the additional option occurrences MUST be treated
like an unrecognized option (see Section 5.4.1).
5.4.6. Option Numbers
Options are identified by an option number. Odd numbers indicate a
critical option, while even numbers indicate an elective option.
(Note that this is not just a convention, it is a feature of the
protocol: Whether an option is elective or critical is entirely
determined by whether its option number is even or odd.)
The option numbers for the options defined in this document are
listed in the CoAP Option Number Registry (Section 12.2).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.5. Payload
Both requests and responses may include payload, depending on the
method or response code respectively. If a method or response code
is not defined to have a payload, then a sender MUST NOT include one,
and a recipient MUST ignore it.
5.5.1. Representation
The payload of requests or of responses indicating success is
typically a representation of a resource or the result of the
requested action. Its format is specified by the Internet media type
and content coding given by the Content-Format Option. In the
absence of this option, no default value is assumed and the format
must be inferred by the application (e.g., from the application
context or by "sniffing" the payload).
5.5.2. Diagnostic Message
The payload of responses indicating a client or server error is a
brief human-readable diagnostic message, explaining the error
situation. This diagnostic message MUST be encoded using UTF-8
[RFC3629], more specifically using Net-Unicode form [RFC5198]. The
Content-Format Option MUST NOT be included by the sender and MUST be
treated like an unrecognized option by the recipient.
The message is similar to the Reason-Phrase on an HTTP status line.
It is not intended for end-users but for software engineers that
during debugging need to interpret it in the context of the present,
English-language specification; therefore no mechanism for language
tagging is needed or provided. In contrast to what is usual in HTTP,
the message SHOULD be empty if there is no additional information
beyond the response code.
5.6. Caching
CoAP endpoints MAY cache responses in order to reduce the response
time and network bandwidth consumption on future, equivalent
requests.
The goal of caching in CoAP is to reuse a prior response message to
satisfy a current request. In some cases, a stored response can be
reused without the need for a network request, reducing latency and
network round-trips; a "freshness" mechanism is used for this purpose
(see Section 5.6.1). Even when a new request is required, it is
often possible to reuse the payload of a prior response to satisfy
the request, thereby reducing network bandwidth usage; a "validation"
mechanism is used for this purpose (see Section 5.6.2).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Unlike HTTP, the cacheability of CoAP responses does not depend on
the request method, but the Response Code. The cacheability of each
Response Code is defined along the Response Code definitions in
Section 5.9. Response Codes that indicate success and are
unrecognized by an endpoint MUST NOT be cached.
For a presented request, a CoAP endpoint MUST NOT use a stored
response, unless:
o the presented request method and that used to obtain the stored
response match,
o all options match between those in the presented request and those
of the request used to obtain the stored response (which includes
the request URI), except that there is no need for a match of the
Token, Max-Age, or ETag request option(s), or any request options
marked as NoCacheKey (Section 5.4), and
o the stored response is either fresh or successfully validated as
defined below.
5.6.1. Freshness Model
When a response is "fresh" in the cache, it can be used to satisfy
subsequent requests without contacting the origin server, thereby
improving efficiency.
The mechanism for determining freshness is for an origin server to
provide an explicit expiration time in the future, using the Max-Age
Option (see Section 5.10.6). The Max-Age Option indicates that the
response is to be considered not fresh after its age is greater than
the specified number of seconds.
The Max-Age Option defaults to a value of 60. Thus, if it is not
present in a cacheable response, then the response is considered not
fresh after its age is greater than 60 seconds. If an origin server
wishes to prevent caching, it MUST explicitly include a Max-Age
Option with a value of zero seconds.
If a client has a fresh stored response and makes a new request
matching the request for that stored response, the new response
invalidates the old response.
5.6.2. Validation Model
When an endpoint has one or more stored responses for a GET request,
but cannot use any of them (e.g., because they are not fresh), it can
use the ETag Option (Section 5.10.7) in the GET request to give the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
origin server an opportunity to both select a stored response to be
used, and to update its freshness. This process is known as
"validating" or "revalidating" the stored response.
When sending such a request, the endpoint SHOULD add an ETag Option
specifying the entity-tag of each stored response that is applicable.
A 2.03 (Valid) response indicates the stored response identified by
the entity-tag given in the response's ETag Option can be reused,
after updating its freshness with the value of the Max-Age Option
that is included (explicitly, or implicitly as a default value) with
the response (see Section 5.9.1.3).
Any other response code indicates that none of the stored responses
nominated in the request is suitable. Instead, the response SHOULD
be used to satisfy the request and MAY replace the stored response.
5.7. Proxying
A proxy is a CoAP endpoint that can be tasked by CoAP clients to
perform requests on their behalf. This may be useful, for example,
when the request could otherwise not be made, or to service the
response from a cache in order to reduce response time and network
bandwidth or energy consumption.
In an overall architecture for a Constrained RESTful Environment,
proxies can serve quite different purposes. Proxies can be
explicitly selected by clients, a role that we term "forward-proxy".
Proxies can also be inserted to stand in for origin servers, a role
that we term "reverse-proxy". Orthogonal to this distinction, a
proxy can map from a CoAP request to a CoAP request (CoAP-to-CoAP
proxy) or translate from or to a different protocol ("cross-proxy").
Full definitions of these terms are provided in Section 1.2.
Notes: The terminology in this specification has been selected to be
culturally compatible with the terminology used in the wider Web
application environments, without necessarily matching it in every
detail (which may not even be relevant to Constrained RESTful
Environments). Not too much semantics should be ascribed to the
components of the terms (such as "forward", "reverse", or
"cross").
HTTP proxies, besides acting as HTTP proxies, often offer a
transport protocol proxying function ("CONNECT") to enable end-to-
end transport layer security through the proxy. No such function
is defined for CoAP-to-CoAP proxies in this specification, as
forwarding of UDP packets is unlikely to be of much value in
Constrained RESTful environments. See also Section 10.2.7 for the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
cross-proxy case.
5.7.1. Proxy Operation
A proxy generally needs a way to determine potential request
parameters for a request to a destination based on the request it
received. This way is fully specified for a forward-proxy, but may
depend on the specific configuration for a reverse-proxy. In
particular, the client of a reverse-proxy generally does not indicate
a locator for the destination, necessitating some form of namespace
translation in the reverse-proxy. However, some aspects of the
operation of proxies are common to all its forms.
If a proxy does not employ a cache, then it simply forwards the
translated request to the determined destination. Otherwise, if it
does employ a cache but does not have a stored response that matches
the translated request and is considered fresh, then it needs to
refresh its cache according to Section 5.6. For options in the
request that the proxy recognizes, it knows whether the option is
intended to act as part of the key used in looking up the cached
value or not. E.g., since requests for different Uri-Path values
address different resources, Uri-Path values are always parts of the
cache key, while, e.g., Token values are never part of the cache key.
For options that the proxy does not recognize but that are marked
Safe in the option number, the option also indicates whether it is to
be included in the cache key (NoCacheKey is not all set) or not
(NoCacheKey is all set). (Options that are unrecognized and marked
Unsafe lead to 4.02 Bad Option.)
If the request to the destination times out, then a 5.04 (Gateway
Timeout) response MUST be returned. If the request to the
destination returns a response that cannot be processed by the proxy
(e.g, due to unrecognized critical options, encoding errors), then a
5.02 (Bad Gateway) response MUST be returned. Otherwise, the proxy
returns the response to the client.
If a response is generated out of a cache, it MUST be generated with
a Max-Age Option that does not extend the max-age originally set by
the server, considering the time the resource representation spent in
the cache. E.g., the Max-Age Option could be adjusted by the proxy
for each response using the formula:
proxy-max-age = original-max-age - cache-age
For example if a request is made to a proxied resource that was
refreshed 20 seconds ago and had an original Max-Age of 60 seconds,
then that resource's proxied max-age is now 40 seconds. Considering
potential network delays on the way from the origin server, a proxy
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
SHOULD be conservative in the max-age values offered.
All options present in a proxy request MUST be processed at the
proxy. Unsafe options in a request that are not recognized by the
proxy MUST lead to a 4.02 (Bad Option) response being returned by the
proxy. A CoAP-to-CoAP proxy MUST forward to the origin server all
Safe options that it does not recognize. Similarly, Unsafe options
in a response that are not recognized by the CoAP-to-CoAP proxy
server MUST lead to a 5.02 (Bad Gateway) response. Again, Safe
options that are not recognized MUST be forwarded.
Additional considerations for cross-protocol proxying between CoAP
and HTTP are discussed in Section 10.
5.7.2. Forward-Proxies
CoAP distinguishes between requests made (as if) to an origin server
and a request made through a forward-proxy. CoAP requests to a
forward-proxy are made as normal confirmable or non-confirmable
requests to the forward-proxy endpoint, but specify the request URI
in a different way: The request URI in a proxy request is specified
as a string in the Proxy-Uri Option (see Section 5.10.3), while the
request URI in a request to an origin server is split into the Uri-
Host, Uri-Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query Options (see Section 5.10.2).
When a proxy request is made to an endpoint and the endpoint is
unwilling or unable to act as proxy for the request URI, it MUST
return a 5.05 (Proxying Not Supported) response. If the authority
(host and port) is recognized as identifying the proxy endpoint
itself (see Section 5.10.3), then the request MUST be treated as a
local (non-proxied) request.
Unless a proxy is configured to forward the proxy request to another
proxy, it MUST translate the request as follows: The scheme of the
request URI defines the outgoing protocol and its details (e.g., CoAP
is used over UDP for the "coap" scheme and over DTLS for the "coaps"
scheme.) For a CoAP-to-CoAP proxy, the origin server's IP address
and port are determined by the authority component of the request
URI, and the request URI is decoded and split into the Uri-Host, Uri-
Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query Options. This consumes the Proxy-URI
option, which is therefore not forwarded to the origin server.
5.7.3. Reverse-Proxies
Reverse-proxies do not make use of the Proxy-Uri option, but need to
determine the destination (next hop) of a request from information in
the request and information in their configuration. E.g., a reverse-
proxy might offer various resources the existence of which it has
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
learned through resource discovery as if they were its own resources.
The reverse-proxy is free to build a namespace for the URIs that
identify these resources. A reverse-proxy may also build a namespace
that gives the client more control over where the request goes, e.g.
by embedding host identifiers and port numbers into the URI path of
the resources offered.
In processing the response, a reverse-proxy has to be careful about
namespacing the ETag option. In many cases, it can be forwarded
unchanged. If the mapping from a resource offered by the reverse-
proxy to resources offered by its various origin servers is not
unique, the reverse-proxy may need to generate a new ETag, making
sure the semantics of this option are properly preserved.
5.8. Method Definitions
In this section each method is defined along with its behavior. A
request with an unrecognized or unsupported Method Code MUST generate
a 4.05 (Method Not Allowed) piggy-backed response.
5.8.1. GET
The GET method retrieves a representation for the information that
currently corresponds to the resource identified by the request URI.
If the request includes one or more Accept Options, they indicate the
preferred content-format of a response. If the request includes an
ETag Option, the GET method requests that ETag be validated and that
the representation be transferred only if validation failed. Upon
success a 2.05 (Content) or 2.03 (Valid) response code SHOULD be
present in the response.
The GET method is safe and idempotent.
5.8.2. POST
The POST method requests that the representation enclosed in the
request be processed. The actual function performed by the POST
method is determined by the origin server and dependent on the target
resource. It usually results in a new resource being created or the
target resource being updated.
If a resource has been created on the server, the response returned
by the server SHOULD have a 2.01 (Created) response code and SHOULD
include the URI of the new resource in a sequence of one or more
Location-Path and/or Location-Query Options (Section 5.10.8). If the
POST succeeds but does not result in a new resource being created on
the server, the response SHOULD have a 2.04 (Changed) response code.
If the POST succeeds and results in the target resource being
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
deleted, the response SHOULD have a 2.02 (Deleted) response code.
POST is neither safe nor idempotent.
5.8.3. PUT
The PUT method requests that the resource identified by the request
URI be updated or created with the enclosed representation. The
representation format is specified by the media type and content
coding given in the Content-Format Option, if provided.
If a resource exists at the request URI the enclosed representation
SHOULD be considered a modified version of that resource, and a 2.04
(Changed) response code SHOULD be returned. If no resource exists
then the server MAY create a new resource with that URI, resulting in
a 2.01 (Created) response code. If the resource could not be created
or modified, then an appropriate error response code SHOULD be sent.
Further restrictions to a PUT can be made by including the If-Match
(see Section 5.10.9) or If-None-Match (see Section 5.10.10) options
in the request.
PUT is not safe, but is idempotent.
5.8.4. DELETE
The DELETE method requests that the resource identified by the
request URI be deleted. A 2.02 (Deleted) response code SHOULD be
used on success or in case the resource did not exist before the
request.
DELETE is not safe, but is idempotent.
5.9. Response Code Definitions
Each response code is described below, including any options required
in the response. Where appropriate, some of the codes will be
specified in regards to related response codes in HTTP [RFC2616];
this does not mean that any such relationship modifies the HTTP
mapping specified in Section 10.
5.9.1. Success 2.xx
This class of status code indicates that the clients request was
successfully received, understood, and accepted.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.9.1.1. 2.01 Created
Like HTTP 201 "Created", but only used in response to POST and PUT
requests. The payload returned with the response, if any, is a
representation of the action result.
If the response includes one or more Location-Path and/or Location-
Query Options, the values of these options specify the location at
which the resource was created. Otherwise, the resource was created
at the request URI. A cache receiving this response MUST mark any
stored response for the created resource as not fresh.
This response is not cacheable.
5.9.1.2. 2.02 Deleted
Like HTTP 204 "No Content", but only used in response to DELETE
requests. The payload returned with the response, if any, is a
representation of the action result.
This response is not cacheable. However, a cache SHOULD mark any
stored response for the deleted resource as not fresh.
5.9.1.3. 2.03 Valid
Related to HTTP 304 "Not Modified", but only used to indicate that
the response identified by the entity-tag identified by the included
ETag Option is valid. Accordingly, the response MUST include an ETag
Option.
When a cache receives a 2.03 (Valid) response, it MUST update the
stored response with the value of the Max-Age Option included in the
response (see Section 5.6.2).
5.9.1.4. 2.04 Changed
Like HTTP 204 "No Content", but only used in response to POST and PUT
requests. The payload returned with the response, if any, is a
representation of the action result.
This response is not cacheable. However, a cache MUST mark any
stored response for the changed resource as not fresh.
5.9.1.5. 2.05 Content
Like HTTP 200 "OK", but only used in response to GET requests.
The payload returned with the response is a representation of the
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
target resource.
This response is cacheable: Caches can use the Max-Age Option to
determine freshness (see Section 5.6.1) and (if present) the ETag
Option for validation (see Section 5.6.2).
5.9.2. Client Error 4.xx
This class of response code is intended for cases in which the client
seems to have erred. These response codes are applicable to any
request method.
The server SHOULD include a diagnostic message as detailed in
Section 5.5.2.
Responses of this class are cacheable: Caches can use the Max-Age
Option to determine freshness (see Section 5.6.1). They cannot be
validated.
5.9.2.1. 4.00 Bad Request
Like HTTP 400 "Bad Request".
5.9.2.2. 4.01 Unauthorized
The client is not authorized to perform the requested action. The
client SHOULD NOT repeat the request without previously improving its
authentication status to the server. Which specific mechanism can be
used for this is outside this document's scope; see also Section 9.
5.9.2.3. 4.02 Bad Option
The request could not be understood by the server due to one or more
unrecognized or malformed options. The client SHOULD NOT repeat the
request without modification.
5.9.2.4. 4.03 Forbidden
Like HTTP 403 "Forbidden".
5.9.2.5. 4.04 Not Found
Like HTTP 404 "Not Found".
5.9.2.6. 4.05 Method Not Allowed
Like HTTP 405 "Method Not Allowed", but with no parallel to the
"Allow" header field.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.9.2.7. 4.06 Not Acceptable
Like HTTP 406 "Not Acceptable", but with no response entity.
5.9.2.8. 4.12 Precondition Failed
Like HTTP 412 "Precondition Failed".
5.9.2.9. 4.13 Request Entity Too Large
Like HTTP 413 "Request Entity Too Large".
5.9.2.10. 4.15 Unsupported Content-Format
Like HTTP 415 "Unsupported Media Type".
5.9.3. Server Error 5.xx
This class of response code indicates cases in which the server is
aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the request.
These response codes are applicable to any request method.
The server SHOULD include a diagnostic message as detailed in
Section 5.5.2.
Responses of this class are cacheable: Caches can use the Max-Age
Option to determine freshness (see Section 5.6.1). They cannot be
validated.
5.9.3.1. 5.00 Internal Server Error
Like HTTP 500 "Internal Server Error".
5.9.3.2. 5.01 Not Implemented
Like HTTP 501 "Not Implemented".
5.9.3.3. 5.02 Bad Gateway
Like HTTP 502 "Bad Gateway".
5.9.3.4. 5.03 Service Unavailable
Like HTTP 503 "Service Unavailable", but using the Max-Age Option in
place of the "Retry-After" header field to indicate the number of
seconds after which to retry.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.9.3.5. 5.04 Gateway Timeout
Like HTTP 504 "Gateway Timeout".
5.9.3.6. 5.05 Proxying Not Supported
The server is unable or unwilling to act as a forward-proxy for the
URI specified in the Proxy-Uri Option (see Section 5.10.3).
5.10. Option Definitions
The individual CoAP options are summarized in Table 1 and explained
below.
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
| No. | C | U | N | R | Name | Format | Length | Default |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
| 1 | x | | | x | If-Match | opaque | 0-8 | (none) |
| 3 | x | x | | | Uri-Host | string | 1-255 | (see |
| | | | | | | | | below) |
| 4 | | | | x | ETag | opaque | 1-8 | (none) |
| 5 | x | | | | If-None-Match | empty | 0 | (none) |
| 7 | x | x | | | Uri-Port | uint | 0-2 | (see |
| | | | | | | | | below) |
| 8 | | | | x | Location-Path | string | 0-255 | (none) |
| 11 | x | x | | x | Uri-Path | string | 0-255 | (none) |
| 12 | | | | | Content-Format | uint | 0-2 | (none) |
| 14 | | x | | | Max-Age | uint | 0-4 | 60 |
| 15 | x | x | | x | Uri-Query | string | 1-255 | (none) |
| 16 | | | | x | Accept | uint | 0-2 | (none) |
| 19 | x | x | | | Token | opaque | 1-8 | (empty) |
| 20 | | | | x | Location-Query | string | 0-255 | (none) |
| 35 | x | x | | | Proxy-Uri | string | 1-1034 | (none) |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
C=Critical, U=Unsafe, N=No-Cache-Key, R=Repeatable
Table 1: Options
Temporary Note: At the time of submission, the great renumbering is
not yet reflected in [I-D.ietf-core-block] and
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]. The new numbers are: 6 for Observe, 23
for Block2, 27 for Block1, and 28 for Size. This note to be
removed when the satellite drafts are updated.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
5.10.1. Token
The Token Option is used to match a response with a request. Every
request has a client-generated token which the server MUST echo in
any response. The token value is a sequence of 0 to 8 bytes. A
default value of the zero-length token is assumed in the absence of
the option. A value of 1 to 8 bytes can be sent as an option value.
Thus when the token value is empty, the Token Option MUST be elided.
A token is intended for use as a client-local identifier for
differentiating between concurrent requests (see Section 5.3). A
client SHOULD generate tokens in a way that tokens currently in use
for a given source/destination pair are unique. An empty token value
is appropriate e.g. when no other tokens are in use to a destination,
or when requests are made serially per destination. There are
however multiple possible implementation strategies to fulfill this.
An endpoint receiving a token MUST treat it as opaque and make no
assumptions about its format.
5.10.2. Uri-Host, Uri-Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query
The Uri-Host, Uri-Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query Options are used to
specify the target resource of a request to a CoAP origin server.
The options encode the different components of the request URI in a
way that no percent-encoding is visible in the option values and that
the full URI can be reconstructed at any involved endpoint. The
syntax of CoAP URIs is defined in Section 6.
The steps for parsing URIs into options is defined in Section 6.4.
These steps result in zero or more Uri-Host, Uri-Port, Uri-Path and
Uri-Query Options being included in a request, where each option
holds the following values:
o the Uri-Host Option specifies the Internet host of the resource
being requested,
o the Uri-Port Option specifies the transport layer port number of
the resource,
o each Uri-Path Option specifies one segment of the absolute path to
the resource, and
o each Uri-Query Option specifies one argument parameterizing the
resource.
Note: Fragments ([RFC3986], Section 3.5) are not part of the request
URI and thus will not be transmitted in a CoAP request.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
The default value of the Uri-Host Option is the IP literal
representing the destination IP address of the request message.
Likewise, the default value of the Uri-Port Option is the destination
UDP port. The default values for the Uri-Host and Uri-Port Options
are sufficient for requests to most servers. Explicit Uri-Host and
Uri-Port Options are typically used when an endpoint hosts multiple
virtual servers.
The Uri-Path and Uri-Query Option can contain any character sequence.
No percent-encoding is performed. The value of a Uri-Path Option
MUST NOT be "." or ".." (as the request URI must be resolved before
parsing it into options).
The steps for constructing the request URI from the options are
defined in Section 6.5. Note that an implementation does not
necessarily have to construct the URI; it can simply look up the
target resource by looking at the individual options.
Examples can be found in Appendix B.
5.10.3. Proxy-Uri
The Proxy-Uri Option is used to make a request to a forward-proxy
(see Section 5.7). The forward-proxy is requested to forward the
request or service it from a valid cache, and return the response.
The option value is an absolute-URI ([RFC3986], Section 4.3).
Note that the forward-proxy MAY forward the request on to another
proxy or directly to the server specified by the absolute-URI. In
order to avoid request loops, a proxy MUST be able to recognize all
of its server names, including any aliases, local variations, and the
numeric IP addresses.
An endpoint receiving a request with a Proxy-Uri Option that is
unable or unwilling to act as a forward-proxy for the request MUST
cause the return of a 5.05 (Proxying Not Supported) response.
The Proxy-Uri Option MUST take precedence over any of the Uri-Host,
Uri-Port, Uri-Path or Uri-Query options (which MUST NOT be included
at the same time in a request containing the Proxy-Uri Option).
5.10.4. Content-Format
The Content-Format Option indicates the representation format of the
message payload. The representation format is given as a numeric
content format identifier that is defined in the CoAP Content Format
registry (Section 12.3). In the absence of the option, no default
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
value is assumed, i.e. the representation format of any
representation message payload is indeterminate (Section 5.5).
5.10.5. Accept
The CoAP Accept option indicates when included one or more times in a
request, one or more Content-Formats, each of which is an acceptable
Content-Format for the client, in the order of preference (most
preferred first). The representation format is given as a numeric
Content-Format identifier that is defined in the CoAP Content-Format
registry (Section 12.3). If no Accept options are given, the client
does not express a preference (thus no default value is assumed).
The client prefers the representation returned by the server to be in
one of the Content-Formats indicated. The server SHOULD return one
of the preferred Content-Formats if available. If none of the
preferred Content-Formats can be returned, then a 4.06 "Not
Acceptable" SHOULD be sent as a response.
Note that as a server might not support the Accept option (and thus
would ignore it as it is elective), the client needs to be prepared
to receive a representation in a different Content-Format. The
client can simply discard a representation it can not make use of.
5.10.6. Max-Age
The Max-Age Option indicates the maximum time a response may be
cached before it MUST be considered not fresh (see Section 5.6.1).
The option value is an integer number of seconds between 0 and
2**32-1 inclusive (about 136.1 years). A default value of 60 seconds
is assumed in the absence of the option in a response.
The value is intended to be current at the time of transmission.
Servers that provide resources with strict tolerances on the value of
Max-Age SHOULD update the value before each retransmission. (See
also Section 5.7.1.)
5.10.7. ETag
The ETag Option in a response provides the current value of the
entity-tag for the enclosed representation of the target resource.
An entity-tag is intended for use as a resource-local identifier for
differentiating between representations of the same resource that
vary over time. It may be generated in any number of ways including
a version, checksum, hash or time. An endpoint receiving an entity-
tag MUST treat it as opaque and make no assumptions about its format.
(Endpoints generating an entity-tag are encouraged to use the most
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
compact representation possible, in particular in regards to clients
and intermediaries that may want to store multiple ETag values.)
An endpoint that has one or more representations previously obtained
from the resource can specify the ETag Option in a request for each
stored response to determine if any of those representations is
current (see Section 5.6.2).
The ETag Option MUST NOT occur more than once in a response, and MAY
occur one or more times in a request.
5.10.8. Location-Path and Location-Query
The Location-Path and Location-Query Options together indicate a
relative URI that consists either of an absolute path, a query string
or both. A combination of these options is included in a 2.01
(Created) response to indicate the location of the resource created
as the result of a POST request (see Section 5.8.2). The location is
resolved relative to the request URI.
If a response with one or more Location-Path and/or Location-Query
Options passes through a cache and the implied URI identifies one or
more currently stored responses, those entries SHOULD be marked as
not fresh.
Each Location-Path Option specifies one segment of the absolute path
to the resource, and each Location-Query Option specifies one
argument parameterizing the resource. The Location-Path and
Location-Query Option can contain any character sequence. No
percent-encoding is performed. The value of a Location-Path Option
MUST NOT be "." or "..".
The steps for constructing the location URI from the options are
analogous to Section 6.5, except that the first five steps are
skipped and the result is a relative URI-reference.
More Location-* options may be defined in the future, and have been
reserved option numbers 128, 132 and 136. If any of these reserved
option numbers occurs in addition to Location-Path and/or Location-
Query and are not supported, then a 4.02 (Bad Option) error MUST be
returned.
5.10.9. If-Match
The If-Match Option MAY be used to make a request conditional on the
current existence or value of an ETag for one or more representations
of the target resource. If-Match is generally useful for resource
update requests, such as PUT requests, as a means for protecting
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
against accidental overwrites when multiple clients are acting in
parallel on the same resource (i.e., the "lost update" problem).
The value of an If-Match option is either an ETag or the empty
string. An If-Match option with an ETag matches a representation
with that exact ETag. An If-Match option with an empty value matches
any existing representation (i.e., it places the precondition on the
existence of any current representation for the target resource).
The If-Match Option can occur multiple times. If any of the options
match, then the server performs the request method as if the set of
If-Match Options were not present.
If there is one or more If-Match Option, but none of the options
match, the server MUST NOT perform the requested method. Instead,
the server MUST respond with the 4.12 (Precondition Failed) response
code.
If the request would, without the If-Match Options, result in
anything other than a 2.xx or 4.12 response code, then any If-Match
Options MUST be ignored.
5.10.10. If-None-Match
The If-None-Match Option MAY be used to make a request conditional on
the non-existence of the target resource. If-None-Match is useful
for resource creation requests, such as PUT requests, as a means for
protecting against accidental overwrites when multiple clients are
acting in parallel on the same resource. The If-None-Match Option
carries no value.
If the target resource does exist, then the server MUST NOT perform
the requested method. Instead, the server MUST respond with the 4.12
(Precondition Failed) response code.
6. CoAP URIs
CoAP uses the "coap" and "coaps" URI schemes for identifying CoAP
resources and providing a means of locating the resource. Resources
are organized hierarchically and governed by a potential CoAP origin
server listening for CoAP requests ("coap") or DTLS-secured CoAP
requests ("coaps") on a given UDP port. The CoAP server is
identified via the generic syntax's authority component, which
includes a host component and optional UDP port number. The
remainder of the URI is considered to be identifying a resource which
can be operated on by the methods defined by the CoAP protocol. The
"coap" and "coaps" URI schemes can thus be compared to the "http" and
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
"https" URI schemes respectively.
The syntax of the "coap" and "coaps" URI schemes is specified below
in Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234]. The definitions of
"host", "port", "path-abempty", "query", "segment", "IP-literal",
"IPv4address" and "reg-name" are adopted from [RFC3986].
Implementation Note: Unfortunately, over time the URI format has
acquired significant complexity. Implementers are encouraged to
examine [RFC3986] closely. E.g., the ABNF for IPv6 addresses is
more complicated than maybe expected. Also, implementers should
take care to perform the processing of percent decoding/encoding
exactly once on the way from a URI to its decoded components or
back. Percent encoding is crucial for data transparency, but may
lead to unusual results such as a slash in a path component.
6.1. coap URI Scheme
coap-URI = "coap:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty [ "?" query ]
If the host component is provided as an IP-literal or IPv4address,
then the CoAP server can be reached at that IP address. If host is a
registered name, then that name is considered an indirect identifier
and the endpoint might use a name resolution service, such as DNS, to
find the address of that host. The host MUST NOT be empty; if a URI
is received with a missing authority or an empty host, then it MUST
be considered invalid. The port subcomponent indicates the UDP port
at which the CoAP server is located. If it is empty or not given,
then the default port 5683 is assumed.
The path identifies a resource within the scope of the host and port.
It consists of a sequence of path segments separated by a slash
character (U+002F SOLIDUS "/").
The query serves to further parameterize the resource. It consists
of a sequence of arguments separated by an ampersand character
(U+0026 AMPERSAND "&"). An argument is often in the form of a
"key=value" pair.
The "coap" URI scheme supports the path prefix "/.well-known/"
defined by [RFC5785] for "well-known locations" in the name-space of
a host. This enables discovery of policy or other information about
a host ("site-wide metadata"), such as hosted resources (see
Section 7).
Application designers are encouraged to make use of short, but
descriptive URIs. As the environments that CoAP is used in are
usually constrained for bandwidth and energy, the trade-off between
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
these two qualities should lean towards the shortness, without
ignoring descriptiveness.
6.2. coaps URI Scheme
coaps-URI = "coaps:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty
[ "?" query ]
All of the requirements listed above for the "coap" scheme are also
requirements for the "coaps" scheme, except that a default UDP port
of [IANA_TBD_PORT] is assumed if the port subcomponent is empty or
not given, and the UDP datagrams MUST be secured for privacy through
the use of DTLS as described in Section 9.1.
Unlike the "coap" scheme, responses to "coaps" identified requests
are never "public" and thus MUST NOT be reused for shared caching
unless the cache is able to make equivalent access control decisions
to the ones that led to the cached entry (Section 11.2). They can,
however, be reused in a private cache if the message is cacheable by
default in CoAP.
Resources made available via the "coaps" scheme have no shared
identity with the "coap" scheme even if their resource identifiers
indicate the same authority (the same host listening to the same UDP
port). They are distinct name spaces and are considered to be
distinct origin servers.
6.3. Normalization and Comparison Rules
Since the "coap" and "coaps" schemes conform to the URI generic
syntax, such URIs are normalized and compared according to the
algorithm defined in [RFC3986], Section 6, using the defaults
described above for each scheme.
If the port is equal to the default port for a scheme, the normal
form is to elide the port subcomponent. Likewise, an empty path
component is equivalent to an absolute path of "/", so the normal
form is to provide a path of "/" instead. The scheme and host are
case-insensitive and normally provided in lowercase; IP-literals are
in recommended form [RFC5952]; all other components are compared in a
case-sensitive manner. Characters other than those in the "reserved"
set are equivalent to their percent-encoded octets (see [RFC3986],
Section 2.1): the normal form is to not encode them.
For example, the following three URIs are equivalent, and cause the
same options and option values to appear in the CoAP messages:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
coap://example.com:5683/~sensors/temp.xml
coap://EXAMPLE.com/%7Esensors/temp.xml
coap://EXAMPLE.com:/%7esensors/temp.xml
6.4. Decomposing URIs into Options
The steps to parse a request's options from a string /url/ are as
follows. These steps either result in zero or more of the Uri-Host,
Uri-Port, Uri-Path and Uri-Query Options being included in the
request, or they fail.
1. If the /url/ string is not an absolute URI ([RFC3986]), then fail
this algorithm.
2. Resolve the /url/ string using the process of reference
resolution defined by [RFC3986], with the URL character encoding
set to UTF-8 [RFC3629].
NOTE: It doesn't matter what it is resolved relative to, since we
already know it is an absolute URL at this point.
3. If /url/ does not have a <scheme> component whose value, when
converted to ASCII lowercase, is "coap" or "coaps", then fail
this algorithm.
4. If /url/ has a <fragment> component, then fail this algorithm.
5. If the <host> component of /url/ does not represent the request's
destination IP address as an IP-literal or IPv4address, include a
Uri-Host Option and let that option's value be the value of the
<host> component of /url/, converted to ASCII lowercase, and then
converting all percent-encodings ("%" followed by two hexadecimal
digits) to the corresponding characters.
NOTE: In the usual case where the request's destination IP
address is derived from the host part, this ensures that a Uri-
Host Option is only used for a <host> component of the form reg-
name.
6. If /url/ has a <port> component, then let /port/ be that
component's value interpreted as a decimal integer; otherwise,
let /port/ be the default port for the scheme.
7. If /port/ does not equal the request's destination UDP port,
include a Uri-Port Option and let that option's value be /port/.
8. If the value of the <path> component of /url/ is empty or
consists of a single slash character (U+002F SOLIDUS "/"), then
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
move to the next step.
Otherwise, for each segment in the <path> component, include a
Uri-Path Option and let that option's value be the segment (not
including the delimiting slash characters) after converting all
percent-encodings ("%" followed by two hexadecimal digits) to the
corresponding characters.
9. If /url/ has a <query> component, then, for each argument in the
<query> component, include a Uri-Query Option and let that
option's value be the argument (not including the question mark
and the delimiting ampersand characters) after converting all
percent-encodings to the corresponding characters.
Note that these rules completely resolve any percent-encoding.
6.5. Composing URIs from Options
The steps to construct a URI from a request's options are as follows.
These steps either result in a URI, or they fail. In these steps,
percent-encoding a character means replacing each of its (UTF-8
encoded) bytes by a "%" character followed by two hexadecimal digits
representing the byte, where the digits A-F are in upper case (as
defined in [RFC3986] Section 2.1; to reduce variability, the
hexadecimal notation for percent-encoding in CoAP URIs MUST use
uppercase letters). The definitions of "unreserved" and "sub-delims"
are adopted from [RFC3986].
1. If the request is secured using DTLS, let /url/ be the string
"coaps://". Otherwise, let /url/ be the string "coap://".
2. If the request includes a Uri-Host Option, let /host/ be that
option's value, where any non-ASCII characters are replaced by
their corresponding percent-encoding. If /host/ is not a valid
reg-name or IP-literal or IPv4address, fail the algorithm. If
the request does not include a Uri-Host Option, let /host/ be
the IP-literal (making use of the conventions of [RFC5952]) or
IPv4address representing the request's destination IP address.
3. Append /host/ to /url/.
4. If the request includes a Uri-Port Option, let /port/ be that
option's value. Otherwise, let /port/ be the request's
destination UDP port.
5. If /port/ is not the default port for the scheme, then append a
single U+003A COLON character (:) followed by the decimal
representation of /port/ to /url/.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
6. Let /resource name/ be the empty string. For each Uri-Path
Option in the request, append a single character U+002F SOLIDUS
(/) followed by the option's value to /resource name/, after
converting any character that is not either in the "unreserved"
set, "sub-delims" set, a U+003A COLON (:) or U+0040 COMMERCIAL
AT (@) character, to its percent-encoded form.
7. If /resource name/ is the empty string, set it to a single
character U+002F SOLIDUS (/).
8. For each Uri-Query Option in the request, append a single
character U+003F QUESTION MARK (?) (first option) or U+0026
AMPERSAND (&) (subsequent options) followed by the option's
value to /resource name/, after converting any character that is
not either in the "unreserved" set, "sub-delims" set (except
U+0026 AMPERSAND (&)), a U+003A COLON (:), U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT
(@), U+002F SOLIDUS (/) or U+003F QUESTION MARK (?) character,
to its percent-encoded form.
9. Append /resource name/ to /url/.
10. Return /url/.
Note that these steps have been designed to lead to a URI in normal
form (see Section 6.3).
7. Discovery
7.1. Service Discovery
A server is discovered by a client by the client knowing or learning
a URI that references a resource in the namespace of the server.
Alternatively, clients can use Multicast CoAP (see Section 8) and the
"All CoAP Nodes" multicast address to find CoAP servers.
Unless the port subcomponent in a "coap" or "coaps" URI indicates the
UDP port at which the CoAP server is located, the server is assumed
to be reachable at the default port.
The CoAP default port number 5683 MUST be supported by a server that
offers resources for resource discovery (see Section 7.2 below) and
SHOULD be supported for providing access to other resources. The
default port number [IANA_TBD_PORT] for DTLS-secured CoAP MAY be
supported by a server for resource discovery and for providing access
to other resources. In addition other endpoints may be hosted at
other ports, e.g. in the dynamic port space.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Implementation Note: When a CoAP server is hosted by a 6LoWPAN node,
header compression efficiency is improved when it also supports a
port number in the 61616-61631 compressed UDP port space defined
in [RFC4944] (note that, as its UDP port differs from the default
port, it is a different endpoint from the server at the default
port).
7.2. Resource Discovery
The discovery of resources offered by a CoAP endpoint is extremely
important in machine-to-machine applications where there are no
humans in the loop and static interfaces result in fragility. A CoAP
endpoint SHOULD support the CoRE Link Format of discoverable
resources as described in [RFC6690]. It is up to the server which
resources are made discoverable (if any).
7.2.1. 'ct' Attribute
This section defines a new Web Linking [RFC5988] attribute for use
with [RFC6690]. The Content-Format code "ct" attribute provides a
hint about the Content-Formats this resource returns. Note that this
is only a hint, and does not override the Content-Format Option of a
CoAP response obtained by actually requesting the representation of
the resource. The value is in the CoAP identifier code format as a
decimal ASCII integer and MUST be in the range of 0-65535 (16-bit
unsigned integer). For example application/xml would be indicated as
"ct=41". If no Content-Format code attribute is present then nothing
about the type can be assumed. The Content-Format code attribute MAY
include a space-separated sequence of Content-Format codes,
indicating that multiple content-formats are available. The syntax
of the attribute value is summarized in the production ct-value in
Figure 13, where cardinal, SP and DQUOTE are defined as in [RFC6690].
ct-value = cardinal
/ DQUOTE cardinal *( 1*SP cardinal ) DQUOTE
Figure 13
8. Multicast CoAP
CoAP supports making requests to a IP multicast group. This is
defined by a series of deltas to Unicast CoAP.
CoAP endpoints that offer services that they want other endpoints to
be able to find using multicast service discovery, join one or more
of the appropriate all-CoAP-nodes multicast addresses Section 12.8
and listen on the default CoAP port. Note that an endpoint might
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
receive multicast requests on other multicast addresses, including
the all-nodes IPv6 address (or via broadcast on IPv4); an endpoint
MUST therefore be prepared to receive such messages but MAY ignore
them if multicast service discovery is not desired.
8.1. Messaging Layer
A multicast request is characterized by being transported in a CoAP
message that is addressed to an IP multicast address instead of a
CoAP endpoint. Such multicast requests MUST be Non-Confirmable.
A server SHOULD be aware that a request arrived via multicast, e.g.
by making use of modern APIs such as IPV6_RECVPKTINFO [RFC3542], if
available.
When a server is aware that a request arrived via multicast, it MUST
NOT return a RST in reply to NON. If it is not aware, it MAY return
a RST in reply to NON as usual. Because such a Reset message will
look identical to an RST for a unicast message from the sender, the
sender MUST avoid using a Message ID that is also still active from
this endpoint with any unicast endpoint that might receive the
multicast message.
8.2. Request/Response Layer
When a server is aware that a request arrived via multicast, the
server MAY always pretend it did not receive the request, in
particular if it doesn't have anything useful to respond (e.g., if it
only has an empty payload or an error response). The decision for
this may depend on the application. (For example, in [RFC6690] query
filtering, a server should not respond to a multicast request if the
filter does not match.)
If a server does decide to respond to a multicast request, it should
not respond immediately. Instead, it should pick a duration for the
period of time during which it intends to respond. For purposes of
this exposition, we call the length of this period the Leisure. The
specific value of this Leisure may depend on the application, or MAY
be derived as described below. The server SHOULD then pick a random
point of time within the chosen Leisure period to send back the
unicast response to the multicast request. If further responses need
to be sent based on the same multicast address membership, a new
leisure period starts at the earliest after the previous one
finishes.
To compute a value for Leisure, the server should have a group size
estimate G, a target data transfer rate R (which both should be
chosen conservatively) and an estimated response size S; a rough
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
lower bound for Leisure can then be computed as
lb_Leisure = S * G / R
E.g., for a multicast request with link-local scope on an 2.4 GHz
IEEE 802.15.4 (6LoWPAN) network, G could be (relatively
conservatively) set to 100, S to 100 bytes, and the target rate to a
conservative 8 kbit/s = 1 kB/s. The resulting lower bound for the
Leisure is 10 seconds.
If a CoAP endpoint does not have suitable data to compute a value for
Leisure, it MAY resort to DEFAULT_LEISURE.
When matching a response to a multicast request, only the token MUST
match; the source endpoint of the response does not need to (and will
not) be the same as the destination endpoint of the original request.
8.2.1. Caching
When a client makes a multicast request, it always makes a new
request to the multicast group (since there may be new group members
that joined meanwhile or ones that did not get the previous request).
It MAY update the cache with the received responses. Then it uses
both cached-still-fresh and 'new' responses as the result of the
request.
A response received in reply to a GET request to a multicast group
MAY be used to satisfy a subsequent request on the related unicast
request URI. The unicast request URI is obtained by replacing the
authority part of the request URI with the transport layer source
address of the response message.
A cache MAY revalidate a response by making a GET request on the
related unicast request URI.
A GET request to a multicast group MUST NOT contain an ETag option.
A mechanism to suppress responses the client already has is left for
further study.
8.2.2. Proxying
When a forward-proxy receives a request with a Proxy-Uri that
indicates a multicast address, the proxy obtains a set of responses
as described above and sends all responses (both cached-still-fresh
and new) back to the original client.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
9. Securing CoAP
This section defines the DTLS binding for CoAP, and the alternative
use of IPsec.
During the provisioning phase, a CoAP device is provided with the
security information that it needs, including keying materials and
access control lists. This specification defines provisioning for
the RawPublicKey mode in Section 9.1.3.2.1. At the end of the
provisioning phase, the device will be in one of four security modes
with the following information for the given mode. The NoSec and
RawPublicKey modes are mandatory to implement for this specification.
NoSec: There is no protocol level security (DTLS is disabled).
Alternative techniques to provide lower layer security SHOULD be
used when appropriate. The use of IPsec is discussed in
Section 9.2.
PreSharedKey: DTLS is enabled and there is a list of pre-shared keys
[RFC4279] and each key includes a list of which nodes it can be
used to communicate with as described in Section 9.1.3.1. At the
extreme there may be one key for each node this CoAP node needs to
communicate with (1:1 node/key ratio).
RawPublicKey: DTLS is enabled and the device has an asymmetric key
pair without a certificate (a raw public key) that is validated
using an out-of-band mechanism [I-D.ietf-tls-oob-pubkey] as
described in Section 9.1.3.2. The device also has an identity
calculated from the public key and a list of identities of the
nodes it can communicate with.
Certificate: DTLS is enabled and the device has an asymmetric key
pair with an X.509 certificate [RFC5280] that binds it to its
Authority Name and is signed by some common trust root as
described in Section 9.1.3.3. The device also has a list of root
trust anchors that can be used for validating a certificate.
In the "NoSec" mode, the system simply sends the packets over normal
UDP over IP and is indicated by the "coap" scheme and the CoAP
default port. The system is secured only by keeping attackers from
being able to send or receive packets from the network with the CoAP
nodes; see Section 11.5 for an additional complication with this
approach.
The other three security modes are achieved using DTLS and are
indicated by the "coaps" scheme and DTLS-secured CoAP default port.
The result is a security association that can be used to authenticate
(within the limits of the security model) and, based on this
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
authentication, authorize the communication partner. CoAP itself
does not provide protocol primitives for authentication or
authorization; where this is required, it can either be provided by
communication security (i.e., IPsec or DTLS) or by object security
(within the payload). Devices that require authorization for certain
operations are expected to require one of these two forms of
security. Necessarily, where an intermediary is involved,
communication security only works when that intermediary is part of
the trust relationships; CoAP does not provide a way to forward
different levels of authorization that clients may have with an
intermediary to further intermediaries or origin servers -- it
therefore may be required to perform all authorization at the first
intermediary.
9.1. DTLS-secured CoAP
Just as HTTP is secured using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over
TCP, CoAP is secured using Datagram TLS (DTLS) [RFC6347] over UDP
(see Figure 14). This section defines the CoAP binding to DTLS,
along with the minimal mandatory-to-implement configurations
appropriate for constrained environments. The binding is defined by
a series of deltas to Unicast CoAP. DTLS is in practice TLS with
added features to deal with the unreliable nature of the UDP
transport.
+----------------------+
| Application |
+----------------------+
+----------------------+
| Requests/Responses |
|----------------------| CoAP
| Messages |
+----------------------+
+----------------------+
| DTLS |
+----------------------+
+----------------------+
| UDP |
+----------------------+
Figure 14: Abstract layering of DTLS-secured CoAP
In some constrained nodes (limited flash and/or RAM) and networks
(limited bandwidth or high scalability requirements), and depending
on the specific cipher suites in use, all modes of DTLS may not be
applicable. Some DTLS cipher suites can add significant
implementation complexity as well as some initial handshake overhead
needed when setting up the security association. Once the initial
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
handshake is completed, DTLS adds a limited per-datagram overhead of
approximately 13 bytes, not including any initialization vectors/
nonces (e.g., 8 bytes with TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC6655]),
integrity check values (e.g., 8 bytes with TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
[RFC6655]) and padding required by the cipher suite. Whether and
which mode of using DTLS is applicable for a CoAP-based application
should be carefully weighed considering the specific cipher suites
that may be applicable, and whether the session maintenance makes it
compatible with application flows and sufficient resources are
available on the constrained nodes and for the added network
overhead. DTLS is not applicable to group keying (multicast
communication); however, it may be a component in a future group key
management protocol.
9.1.1. Messaging Layer
The endpoint acting as the CoAP client should also act as the DTLS
client. It should initiate a session to the server on the
appropriate port. When the DTLS handshake has finished, the client
may initiate the first CoAP request. All CoAP messages MUST be sent
as DTLS "application data".
The following rules are added for matching an ACK or RST to a CON
message or a RST to a NON message: The DTLS session MUST be the same
and the epoch MUST be the same.
A message is the same when it is sent within the same DTLS session
and same epoch and has the same Message ID.
Note: When a confirmable message is retransmitted, a new DTLS
sequence_number is used for each attempt, even though the CoAP
Message ID stays the same. So a recipient still has to perform
deduplication as described in Section 4.5. Retransmissions MUST NOT
be performed across epochs.
DTLS connections in RawPublicKey and Certificate mode are set up
using mutual authentication so they can remain up and be reused for
future message exchanges in either direction. Devices can close a
DTLS connection when they need to recover resources but in general
they should keep the connection up for as long as possible. Closing
the DTLS connection after every CoAP message exchange is very
inefficient.
9.1.2. Request/Response Layer
The following rules are added for matching a response to a request:
The DTLS session MUST be the same and the epoch MUST be the same.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
9.1.3. Endpoint Identity
Devices SHOULD support the Server Name Indication (SNI) to indicate
their Authority Name in the SNI HostName field as defined in Section
3 of [RFC6066]. This is needed so that when a host that acts as a
virtual server for multiple Authorities receives a new DTLS
connection, it knows which keys to use for the DTLS session.
9.1.3.1. Pre-Shared Keys
When forming a connection to a new node, the system selects an
appropriate key based on which nodes it is trying to reach and then
forms a DTLS session using a PSK (Pre-Shared Key) mode of DTLS.
Implementations in these modes MUST support the mandatory to
implement cipher suite TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 as specified in
[RFC6655].
The security considerations of [RFC4279] (Section 7) apply. In
particular, applications should carefully weigh whether they need
Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) or not and select an appropriate cipher
suite (7.1). The entropy of the PSK must be sufficient to mitigate
against brute-force and (where the PSK is not chosen randomly but by
a human) dictionary attacks (7.2). The cleartext communication of
client identities may leak data or compromise privacy (7.3).
9.1.3.2. Raw Public Key Certificates
In this mode the device has an asymmetric key pair but without an
X.509 certificate (called a raw public key). A device MAY be
configured with multiple raw public keys. The type and length of the
raw public key depends on the cipher suite used. Implementations in
RawPublicKey mode MUST support the mandatory to implement cipher
suite TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 as specified in
[I-D.mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc], [RFC5246], [RFC4492]. The mechanism
for using raw public keys with TLS is specified in
[I-D.ietf-tls-oob-pubkey].
9.1.3.2.1. Provisioning
The RawPublicKey mode was designed to be easily provisioned in M2M
deployments. It is assumed that each device has an appropriate
asymmetric public key pair installed. An identifier is calculated
from the public key as described in Section 2 of
[I-D.farrell-decade-ni]. All implementations that support checking
RawPublicKey identities MUST support at least the sha-256-120 mode
(SHA-256 truncated to 120 bits). Implementations SHOULD support also
longer length identifiers and MAY support shorter lengths. Note that
the shorter lengths provide less security against attacks and their
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
use is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Depending on how identifiers are given to the system that verifies
them, support for URI, binary, and/or human-speakable format
[I-D.farrell-decade-ni] needs to be implemented. All implementations
SHOULD support the binary mode and implementations that have a user
interface SHOULD also support the human-speakable format.
During provisioning, the identifier of each node is collected, for
example by reading a barcode on the outside of the device or by
obtaining a pre-compiled list of the identifiers. These identifiers
are then installed in the corresponding endpoint, for example an M2M
data collection server. The identifier is used for two purposes, to
associate the endpoint with further device information and to perform
access control. During provisioning, an access control list of
identifiers the device may start DTLS sessions with SHOULD also be
installed.
9.1.3.3. X.509 Certificates
Implementations in Certificate Mode MUST support the mandatory to
implement cipher suite TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 as
specified in [RFC5246].
The Authority Name in the certificate is the name that would be used
in the Authority part of a CoAP URI. It is worth noting that this
would typically not be either an IP address or DNS name but would
instead be a long term unique identifier for the device such as the
EUI-64 [EUI64]. The discovery process used in the system would build
up the mapping between IP addresses of the given devices and the
Authority Name for each device. Some devices could have more than
one Authority and would need more than a single certificate.
When a new connection is formed, the certificate from the remote
device needs to be verified. If the CoAP node has a source of
absolute time, then the node SHOULD check that the validity dates of
the certificate are within range. The certificate MUST also be
signed by an appropriate chain of trust. If the certificate contains
a SubjectAltName, then the Authority Name MUST match at least one of
the authority names of any CoAP URI found in a URI type field in the
SubjectAltName set. If there is no SubjectAltName in the
certificate, then the Authoritative Name must match the CN found in
the certificate using the matching rules defined in [RFC2818] with
the exception that certificates with wildcards are not allowed.
If the system has a shared key in addition to the certificate, then a
cipher suite that includes the shared key such as
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA [RFC4279] SHOULD be used.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
9.2. Using CoAP with IPsec
One mechanism to secure CoAP in constrained environments is the IPsec
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] when CoAP is used
without DTLS in NoSec Mode. Using IPsec ESP with the appropriate
configuration, it is possible for many constrained devices to support
encryption with built-in link-layer encryption hardware. For
example, some IEEE 802.15.4 radio chips are compatible with AES-CBC
(with 128-bit keys) [RFC3602] as defined for use with IPsec in
[RFC4835]. Alternatively, particularly on more common IEEE 802.15.4
hardware that supports AES encryption but not decryption, and to
avoid the need for padding, nodes could directly use the more widely
supported AES-CCM as defined for use with IPsec in [RFC4309], if the
security considerations in Section 9 of that specification can be
fulfilled.
Necessarily for AES-CCM, but much preferably also for AES-CBC, static
keying should be avoided and the initial keying material be derived
into transient session keys, e.g. using a low-overhead mode of IKEv2
[RFC5996] as described in [I-D.kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal]; such a
protocol for managing keys and sequence numbers is also the only way
to achieve anti-replay capabilities. However, no recommendation can
be made at this point on how to manage group keys (i.e., for
multicast) in a constrained environment. Once any initial setup is
completed, IPsec ESP adds a limited overhead of approximately 10
bytes per packet, not including initialization vectors, integrity
check values and padding required by the cipher suite.
When using IPsec to secure CoAP, both authentication and
confidentiality SHOULD be applied as recommended in [RFC4303]. The
use of IPsec between CoAP endpoints is transparent to the application
layer and does not require special consideration for a CoAP
implementation.
IPsec may not be appropriate for all environments. For example,
IPsec support is not available for many embedded IP stacks and even
in full PC operating systems or on back-end web servers, application
developers may not have sufficient access to configure or enable
IPsec or to add a security gateway to the infrastructure. Problems
with firewalls and NATs may furthermore limit the use of IPsec.
10. Cross-Protocol Proxying between CoAP and HTTP
CoAP supports a limited subset of HTTP functionality, and thus cross-
protocol proxying to HTTP is straightforward. There might be several
reasons for proxying between CoAP and HTTP, for example when
designing a web interface for use over either protocol or when
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
realizing a CoAP-HTTP proxy. Likewise, CoAP could equally be proxied
to other protocols such as XMPP [RFC6120] or SIP [RFC3264]; the
definition of these mechanisms is out of scope of this specification.
There are two possible directions to access a resource via a forward-
proxy:
CoAP-HTTP Proxying: Enables CoAP clients to access resources on HTTP
servers through an intermediary. This is initiated by including
the Proxy-Uri Option with an "http" or "https" URI in a CoAP
request to a CoAP-HTTP proxy.
HTTP-CoAP Proxying: Enables HTTP clients to access resources on CoAP
servers through an intermediary. This is initiated by specifying
a "coap" or "coaps" URI in the Request-Line of an HTTP request to
an HTTP-CoAP proxy.
Either way, only the Request/Response model of CoAP is mapped to
HTTP. The underlying model of confirmable or non-confirmable
messages, etc., is invisible and MUST have no effect on a proxy
function. The following sections describe the handling of requests
to a forward-proxy. Reverse proxies are not specified as the proxy
function is transparent to the client with the proxy acting as if it
was the origin server.
10.1. CoAP-HTTP Proxying
If a request contains a Proxy-URI Option with an 'http' or 'https'
URI [RFC2616], then the receiving CoAP endpoint (called "the proxy"
henceforth) is requested to perform the operation specified by the
request method on the indicated HTTP resource and return the result
to the client.
This section specifies for any CoAP request the CoAP response that
the proxy should return to the client. How the proxy actually
satisfies the request is an implementation detail, although the
typical case is expected to be the proxy translating and forwarding
the request to an HTTP origin server.
Since HTTP and CoAP share the basic set of request methods,
performing a CoAP request on an HTTP resource is not so different
from performing it on a CoAP resource. The meanings of the
individual CoAP methods when performed on HTTP resources are
explained below.
If the proxy is unable or unwilling to service a request with an HTTP
URI, a 5.05 (Proxying Not Supported) response is returned to the
client. If the proxy services the request by interacting with a
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
third party (such as the HTTP origin server) and is unable to obtain
a result within a reasonable time frame, a 5.04 (Gateway Timeout)
response is returned; if a result can be obtained but is not
understood, a 5.02 (Bad Gateway) response is returned.
10.1.1. GET
The GET method requests the proxy to return a representation of the
HTTP resource identified by the request URI.
Upon success, a 2.05 (Content) response code SHOULD be returned. The
payload of the response MUST be a representation of the target HTTP
resource, and the Content-Format Option be set accordingly. The
response MUST indicate a Max-Age value that is no greater than the
remaining time the representation can be considered fresh. If the
HTTP entity has an entity tag, the proxy SHOULD include an ETag
Option in the response and process ETag Options in requests as
described below.
A client can influence the processing of a GET request by including
the following option:
Accept: The request MAY include one or more Accept Options,
identifying the preferred response content-format.
ETag: The request MAY include one or more ETag Options, identifying
responses that the client has stored. This requests the proxy to
send a 2.03 (Valid) response whenever it would send a 2.05
(Content) response with an entity tag in the requested set
otherwise. Note that CoAP ETags are always strong ETags in the
HTTP sense; CoAP does not have the equivalent of HTTP weak ETags,
and there is no good way to make use of these in a cross-proxy.
10.1.2. PUT
The PUT method requests the proxy to update or create the HTTP
resource identified by the request URI with the enclosed
representation.
If a new resource is created at the request URI, a 2.01 (Created)
response MUST be returned to the client. If an existing resource is
modified, a 2.04 (Changed) response MUST be returned to indicate
successful completion of the request.
10.1.3. DELETE
The DELETE method requests the proxy to delete the HTTP resource
identified by the request URI at the HTTP origin server.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
A 2.02 (Deleted) response MUST be returned to client upon success or
if the resource does not exist at the time of the request.
10.1.4. POST
The POST method requests the proxy to have the representation
enclosed in the request be processed by the HTTP origin server. The
actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the
origin server and dependent on the resource identified by the request
URI.
If the action performed by the POST method does not result in a
resource that can be identified by a URI, a 2.04 (Changed) response
MUST be returned to the client. If a resource has been created on
the origin server, a 2.01 (Created) response MUST be returned.
10.2. HTTP-CoAP Proxying
If an HTTP request contains a Request-URI with a 'coap' or 'coaps'
URI, then the receiving HTTP endpoint (called "the proxy" henceforth)
is requested to perform the operation specified by the request method
on the indicated CoAP resource and return the result to the client.
This section specifies for any HTTP request the HTTP response that
the proxy should return to the client. How the proxy actually
satisfies the request is an implementation detail, although the
typical case is expected to be the proxy translating and forwarding
the request to a CoAP origin server. The meanings of the individual
HTTP methods when performed on CoAP resources are explained below.
If the proxy is unable or unwilling to service a request with a CoAP
URI, a 501 (Not Implemented) response SHOULD be returned to the
client. If the proxy services the request by interacting with a
third party (such as the CoAP origin server) and is unable to obtain
a result within a reasonable time frame, a 504 (Gateway Timeout)
response SHOULD be returned; if a result can be obtained but is not
understood, a 502 (Bad Gateway) response SHOULD be returned.
10.2.1. OPTIONS and TRACE
As the OPTIONS and TRACE methods are not supported in CoAP a 501 (Not
Implemented) error MUST be returned to the client.
10.2.2. GET
The GET method requests the proxy to return a representation of the
CoAP resource identified by the Request-URI.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Upon success, a 200 (OK) response SHOULD be returned. The payload of
the response MUST be a representation of the target CoAP resource,
and the Content-Type and Content-Encoding header fields be set
accordingly. The response MUST indicate a max-age directive that
indicates a value no greater than the remaining time the
representation can be considered fresh. If the CoAP response has an
ETag option, the proxy SHOULD include an ETag header field in the
response.
A client can influence the processing of a GET request by including
the following options:
Accept: Each individual Media-type of the HTTP Accept header in a
request is mapped to a CoAP Accept option. HTTP Accept Media-type
ranges, parameters and extensions are not supported by the CoAP
Accept option. If the proxy cannot send a response which is
acceptable according to the combined Accept field value, then the
proxy SHOULD send a 406 (not acceptable) response.
Conditional GETs: Conditional HTTP GET requests that include an "If-
Match" or "If-None-Match" request-header field can be mapped to a
corresponding CoAP request. The "If-Modified-Since" and "If-
Unmodified-Since" request-header fields are not directly supported
by CoAP, but SHOULD be implemented locally by a caching proxy.
10.2.3. HEAD
The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT
return a message-body in the response.
Although there is no direct equivalent of HTTP's HEAD method in CoAP,
an HTTP-CoAP proxy responds to HEAD requests for CoAP resources, and
the HTTP headers are returned without a message-body.
Implementation Note: An HTTP-CoAP proxy may want to try using a
block-wise transfer [I-D.ietf-core-block] option to minimize the
amount of data actually transferred, but needs to be prepared for
the case that the origin server does not support block-wise
transfers.
10.2.4. POST
The POST method requests the proxy to have the representation
enclosed in the request be processed by the CoAP origin server. The
actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the
origin server and dependent on the resource identified by the request
URI.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
If the action performed by the POST method does not result in a
resource that can be identified by a URI, a 200 (OK) or 204 (No
Content) response MUST be returned to the client. If a resource has
been created on the origin server, a 201 (Created) response MUST be
returned.
If any of the Location-* Options are present in the CoAP response, a
Location header field constructed from the values of these options
SHOULD be returned.
10.2.5. PUT
The PUT method requests the proxy to update or create the CoAP
resource identified by the Request-URI with the enclosed
representation.
If a new resource is created at the Request-URI, a 201 (Created)
response MUST be returned to the client. If an existing resource is
modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) response codes
SHOULD be sent to indicate successful completion of the request.
10.2.6. DELETE
The DELETE method requests the proxy to delete the CoAP resource
identified by the Request-URI at the CoAP origin server.
A successful response SHOULD be 200 (OK) if the response includes an
entity describing the status or 204 (No Content) if the action has
been enacted but the response does not include an entity.
10.2.7. CONNECT
This method can not currently be satisfied by an HTTP-CoAP proxy
function as TLS to DTLS tunneling has not yet been specified. For
now, a 501 (Not Implemented) error SHOULD be returned to the client.
11. Security Considerations
This section analyzes the possible threats to the protocol. It is
meant to inform protocol and application developers about the
security limitations of CoAP as described in this document. As CoAP
realizes a subset of the features in HTTP/1.1, the security
considerations in Section 15 of [RFC2616] are also pertinent to CoAP.
This section concentrates on describing limitations specific to CoAP.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
11.1. Protocol Parsing, Processing URIs
A network-facing application can exhibit vulnerabilities in its
processing logic for incoming packets. Complex parsers are well-
known as a likely source of such vulnerabilities, such as the ability
to remotely crash a node, or even remotely execute arbitrary code on
it. CoAP attempts to narrow the opportunities for introducing such
vulnerabilities by reducing parser complexity, by giving the entire
range of encodable values a meaning where possible, and by
aggressively reducing complexity that is often caused by unnecessary
choice between multiple representations that mean the same thing.
Much of the URI processing has been moved to the clients, further
reducing the opportunities for introducing vulnerabilities into the
servers. Even so, the URI processing code in CoAP implementations is
likely to be a large source of remaining vulnerabilities and should
be implemented with special care. The most complex parser remaining
could be the one for the CoRE Link Format, although this also has
been designed with a goal of reduced implementation complexity
[RFC6690]. (See also section 15.2 of [RFC2616].)
11.2. Proxying and Caching
As mentioned in 15.7 of [RFC2616], proxies are by their very nature
men-in-the-middle, breaking any IPsec or DTLS protection that a
direct CoAP message exchange might have. They are therefore
interesting targets for breaking confidentiality or integrity of CoAP
message exchanges. As noted in [RFC2616], they are also interesting
targets for breaking availability.
The threat to confidentiality and integrity of request/response data
is amplified where proxies also cache. Note that CoAP does not
define any of the cache-suppressing Cache-Control options that
HTTP/1.1 provides to better protect sensitive data.
For a caching implementation, any access control considerations that
would apply to making the request that generated the cache entry also
need to be applied to the value in the cache. This is relevant for
clients that implement multiple security domains, as well as for
proxies that may serve multiple clients. Also, a caching proxy MUST
NOT make cached values available to requests that have lesser
transport security properties than to which it would make available
the process of forwarding the request in the first place.
Finally, a proxy that fans out Separate Responses (as opposed to
Piggy-backed Responses) to multiple original requesters may provide
additional amplification (see below).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
11.3. Risk of amplification
CoAP servers generally reply to a request packet with a response
packet. This response packet may be significantly larger than the
request packet. An attacker might use CoAP nodes to turn a small
attack packet into a larger attack packet, an approach known as
amplification. There is therefore a danger that CoAP nodes could
become implicated in denial of service (DoS) attacks by using the
amplifying properties of the protocol: An attacker that is attempting
to overload a victim but is limited in the amount of traffic it can
generate, can use amplification to generate a larger amount of
traffic.
This is particularly a problem in nodes that enable NoSec access,
that are accessible from an attacker and can access potential victims
(e.g. on the general Internet), as the UDP protocol provides no way
to verify the source address given in the request packet. An
attacker need only place the IP address of the victim in the source
address of a suitable request packet to generate a larger packet
directed at the victim.
As a mitigating factor, many constrained networks will only be able
to generate a small amount of traffic, which may make CoAP nodes less
attractive for this attack. However, the limited capacity of the
constrained network makes the network itself a likely victim of an
amplification attack.
A CoAP server can reduce the amount of amplification it provides to
an attacker by using slicing/blocking modes of CoAP
[I-D.ietf-core-block] and offering large resource representations
only in relatively small slices. E.g., for a 1000 byte resource, a
10-byte request might result in an 80-byte response (with a 64-byte
block) instead of a 1016-byte response, considerably reducing the
amplification provided.
CoAP also supports the use of multicast IP addresses in requests, an
important requirement for M2M. Multicast CoAP requests may be the
source of accidental or deliberate denial of service attacks,
especially over constrained networks. This specification attempts to
reduce the amplification effects of multicast requests by limiting
when a response is returned. To limit the possibility of malicious
use, CoAP servers SHOULD NOT accept multicast requests that can not
be authenticated. If possible a CoAP server SHOULD limit the support
for multicast requests to specific resources where the feature is
required.
On some general purpose operating systems providing a Posix-style
API, it is not straightforward to find out whether a packet received
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
was addressed to a multicast address. While many implementations
will know whether they have joined a multicast group, this creates a
problem for packets addressed to multicast addresses of the form
FF0x::1, which are received by every IPv6 node. Implementations
SHOULD make use of modern APIs such as IPV6_RECVPKTINFO [RFC3542], if
available, to make this determination.
11.4. IP Address Spoofing Attacks
Due to the lack of a handshake in UDP, a rogue endpoint which is free
to read and write messages carried by the constrained network (i.e.
NoSec or PreSharedKey deployments with nodes/key ratio > 1:1), may
easily attack a single endpoint, a group of endpoints, as well as the
whole network e.g. by:
1. spoofing RST in response to a CON or NON message, thus making an
endpoint "deaf"; or
2. spoofing the entire response with forged payload/options (this
has different levels of impact: from single response disruption,
to much bolder attacks on the supporting infrastructure, e.g.
poisoning proxy caches, or tricking validation / lookup
interfaces in resource directories and, more generally, any
component that stores global network state and uses CoAP as the
messaging facility to handle state set/update's is a potential
target.); or
3. spoofing a multicast request for a target node which may result
in both network congestion/collapse and victim DoS'ing / forced
wakeup from sleeping; or
4. spoofing observe messages, etc.
In principle, spoofing can be detected by CoAP only in case CON
semantics is used, because of unexpected ACK/RSTs coming from the
deceived endpoint. But this imposes keeping track of the used
Message IDs which is not always possible, and moreover detection
becomes available usually after the damage is already done. This
kind of attack can be prevented using security modes other than
NoSec.
11.5. Cross-Protocol Attacks
The ability to incite a CoAP endpoint to send packets to a fake
source address can be used not only for amplification, but also for
cross-protocol attacks against a victim listening to UDP packets at a
given address (IP address and port):
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o the attacker sends a message to a CoAP endpoint with the given
address as the fake source address,
o the CoAP endpoint replies with a message to the given source
address,
o the victim at the given address receives a UDP packet that it
interprets according to the rules of a different protocol.
This may be used to circumvent firewall rules that prevent direct
communication from the attacker to the victim, but happen to allow
communication from the CoAP endpoint (which may also host a valid
role in the other protocol) to the victim.
Also, CoAP endpoints may be the victim of a cross-protocol attack
generated through an endpoint of another UDP-based protocol such as
DNS. In both cases, attacks are possible if the security properties
of the endpoints rely on checking IP addresses (and firewalling off
direct attacks sent from outside using fake IP addresses). In
general, because of their lack of context, UDP-based protocols are
relatively easy targets for cross-protocol attacks.
Finally, CoAP URIs transported by other means could be used to incite
clients to send messages to endpoints of other protocols.
One mitigation against cross-protocol attacks is strict checking of
the syntax of packets received, combined with sufficient difference
in syntax. As an example, it might help if it were difficult to
incite a DNS server to send a DNS response that would pass the checks
of a CoAP endpoint. Unfortunately, the first two bytes of a DNS
reply are an ID that can be chosen by the attacker, which map into
the interesting part of the CoAP header, and the next two bytes are
then interpreted as CoAP's Message ID (i.e., any value is
acceptable). The DNS count words may be interpreted as multiple
instances of a (non-existent, but elective) CoAP option 0. The
echoed query finally may be manufactured by the attacker to achieve a
desired effect on the CoAP endpoint; the response added by the server
(if any) might then just be interpreted as added payload.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ID | T, OC, code
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z | RCODE | message id
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT | (options 0)
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT | (options 0)
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT | (options 0)
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT | (options 0)
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Figure 15: DNS Header vs. CoAP Message
In general, for any pair of protocols, one of the protocols can very
well have been designed in a way that enables an attacker to cause
the generation of replies that look like messages of the other
protocol. It is often much harder to ensure or prove the absence of
viable attacks than to generate examples that may not yet completely
enable an attack but might be further developed by more creative
minds. Cross-protocol attacks can therefore only be completely
mitigated if endpoints don't authorize actions desired by an attacker
just based on trusting the source IP address of a packet.
Conversely, a NoSec environment that completely relies on a firewall
for CoAP security not only needs to firewall off the CoAP endpoints
but also all other endpoints that might be incited to send UDP
messages to CoAP endpoints using some other UDP-based protocol.
In addition to the considerations above, the security considerations
for DTLS with respect to cross-protocol attacks apply. E.g., if the
same DTLS security association ("connection") is used to carry data
of multiple protocols, DTLS no longer provides protection against
cross-protocol attacks between these protocols.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. CoAP Code Registry
This document defines a registry for the values of the Code field in
the CoAP header. The name of the registry is "CoAP Codes".
All values are assigned by sub-registries according to the following
ranges:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
0 Indicates an empty message (see Section 4.1).
1-31 Indicates a request. Values in this range are assigned by
the "CoAP Method Codes" sub-registry (see Section 12.1.1).
32-63 Reserved
64-191 Indicates a response. Values in this range are assigned by
the "CoAP Response Codes" sub-registry (see
Section 12.1.2).
192-255 Reserved
12.1.1. Method Codes
The name of the sub-registry is "CoAP Method Codes".
Each entry in the sub-registry must include the Method Code in the
range 1-31, the name of the method, and a reference to the method's
documentation.
Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:
+------+--------+-----------+
| Code | Name | Reference |
+------+--------+-----------+
| 1 | GET | [RFCXXXX] |
| 2 | POST | [RFCXXXX] |
| 3 | PUT | [RFCXXXX] |
| 4 | DELETE | [RFCXXXX] |
+------+--------+-----------+
Table 2: CoAP Method Codes
All other Method Codes are Unassigned.
The IANA policy for future additions to this registry is "IETF
Review" as described in [RFC5226].
The documentation of a method code should specify the semantics of a
request with that code, including the following properties:
o The response codes the method returns in the success case.
o Whether the method is idempotent, safe, or both.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
12.1.2. Response Codes
The name of the sub-registry is "CoAP Response Codes".
Each entry in the sub-registry must include the Response Code in the
range 64-191, a description of the Response Code, and a reference to
the Response Code's documentation.
Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:
+------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| Code | Description | Reference |
+------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| 65 | 2.01 Created | [RFCXXXX] |
| 66 | 2.02 Deleted | [RFCXXXX] |
| 67 | 2.03 Valid | [RFCXXXX] |
| 68 | 2.04 Changed | [RFCXXXX] |
| 69 | 2.05 Content | [RFCXXXX] |
| 128 | 4.00 Bad Request | [RFCXXXX] |
| 129 | 4.01 Unauthorized | [RFCXXXX] |
| 130 | 4.02 Bad Option | [RFCXXXX] |
| 131 | 4.03 Forbidden | [RFCXXXX] |
| 132 | 4.04 Not Found | [RFCXXXX] |
| 133 | 4.05 Method Not Allowed | [RFCXXXX] |
| 134 | 4.06 Not Acceptable | [RFCXXXX] |
| 140 | 4.12 Precondition Failed | [RFCXXXX] |
| 141 | 4.13 Request Entity Too Large | [RFCXXXX] |
| 143 | 4.15 Unsupported Content-Format | [RFCXXXX] |
| 160 | 5.00 Internal Server Error | [RFCXXXX] |
| 161 | 5.01 Not Implemented | [RFCXXXX] |
| 162 | 5.02 Bad Gateway | [RFCXXXX] |
| 163 | 5.03 Service Unavailable | [RFCXXXX] |
| 164 | 5.04 Gateway Timeout | [RFCXXXX] |
| 165 | 5.05 Proxying Not Supported | [RFCXXXX] |
+------+---------------------------------+-----------+
Table 3: CoAP Response Codes
The Response Codes 96-127 are Reserved for future use. All other
Response Codes are Unassigned.
The IANA policy for future additions to this registry is "IETF
Review" as described in [RFC5226].
The documentation of a response code should specify the semantics of
a response with that code, including the following properties:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o The methods the response code applies to.
o Whether payload is required, optional or not allowed.
o The semantics of the payload. For example, the payload of a 2.05
(Content) response is a representation of the target resource; the
payload in an error response is a human-readable diagnostic
message.
o The format of the payload. For example, the format in a 2.05
(Content) response is indicated by the Content-Format Option; the
format of the payload in an error response is always Net-Unicode
text.
o Whether the response is cacheable according to the freshness
model.
o Whether the response is validatable according to the validation
model.
o Whether the response causes a cache to mark responses stored for
the request URI as not fresh.
12.2. Option Number Registry
This document defines a registry for the Option Numbers used in CoAP
options. The name of the registry is "CoAP Option Numbers".
Each entry in the registry must include the Option Number, the name
of the option and a reference to the option's documentation.
Initial entries in this registry are as follows:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
+--------+----------------+-----------+
| Number | Name | Reference |
+--------+----------------+-----------+
| 0 | (Reserved) | |
| 1 | If-Match | [RFCXXXX] |
| 3 | Uri-Host | [RFCXXXX] |
| 4 | ETag | [RFCXXXX] |
| 5 | If-None-Match | [RFCXXXX] |
| 7 | Uri-Port | [RFCXXXX] |
| 8 | Location-Path | [RFCXXXX] |
| 11 | Uri-Path | [RFCXXXX] |
| 12 | Content-Format | [RFCXXXX] |
| 14 | Max-Age | [RFCXXXX] |
| 15 | Uri-Query | [RFCXXXX] |
| 16 | Accept | [RFCXXXX] |
| 19 | Token | [RFCXXXX] |
| 20 | Location-Query | [RFCXXXX] |
| 35 | Proxy-Uri | [RFCXXXX] |
| 128 | (Reserved) | [RFCXXXX] |
| 132 | (Reserved) | [RFCXXXX] |
| 136 | (Reserved) | [RFCXXXX] |
+--------+----------------+-----------+
Table 4: CoAP Option Numbers
The IANA policy for future additions to this registry is split into
three tiers as follows. The range of 0..255 is reserved for options
defined by the IETF (IETF Review). The range of 256..2047 is
reserved for commonly used options with public specifications
(Specification Required). The range of 2048..65535 is for all other
options including private or vendor specific ones, which undergo a
Designated Expert review to help ensure that the option semantics are
defined correctly.
+---------------+------------------------+
| Option Number | Policy [RFC5226] |
+---------------+------------------------+
| 0..255 | IETF Review |
| 256..2047 | Specification Required |
| 2048..65535 | Designated Expert |
+---------------+------------------------+
The documentation of an Option Number should specify the semantics of
an option with that number, including the following properties:
o The meaning of the option in a request.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o The meaning of the option in a response.
o Whether the option is critical or elective, as determined by the
Option Number.
o Whether the option is Safe, and whether it is part of the Cache-
Key, as determined by the Option Number (see Section 5.4.2).
o The format and length of the option's value.
o Whether the option must occur at most once or whether it can occur
multiple times.
o The default value, if any. For a critical option with a default
value, a discussion on how the default value enables processing by
implementations not implementing the critical option
(Section 5.4.4).
12.3. Content-Format Registry
Internet media types are identified by a string, such as
"application/xml" [RFC2046]. In order to minimize the overhead of
using these media types to indicate the format of payloads, this
document defines a registry for a subset of Internet media types to
be used in CoAP and assigns each, in combination with a content-
coding, a numeric identifier. The name of the registry is "CoAP
Content-Formats".
Each entry in the registry must include the media type registered
with IANA, the numeric identifier in the range 0-65535 to be used for
that media type in CoAP, the content-coding associated with this
identifier, and a reference to a document describing what a payload
with that media type means semantically.
CoAP does not include a way to convey content-encoding information
with a request or response, and for that reason the content-encoding
is also specified for each identifier (if any). If multiple content-
encodings will be used with a media type, then a separate Content-
Format identifier for each is to be registered. Similarly, other
parameters related to an Internet media type, such as level, can be
defined for a CoAP Content-Format entry.
Initial entries in this registry are as follows:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
+--------------------+----------+-----+-----------------------------+
| Media type | Encoding | Id. | Reference |
+--------------------+----------+-----+-----------------------------+
| text/plain; | - | 0 | [RFC2046][RFC3676][RFC5147] |
| charset=utf-8 | | | |
| application/ | - | 40 | [RFC6690] |
| link-format | | | |
| application/xml | - | 41 | [RFC3023] |
| application/ | - | 42 | [RFC2045][RFC2046] |
| octet-stream | | | |
| application/exi | - | 47 | [EXIMIME] |
| application/json | - | 50 | [RFC4627] |
+--------------------+----------+-----+-----------------------------+
Table 5: CoAP Content-Formats
The identifiers between 201 and 255 inclusive are reserved for
Private Use. All other identifiers are Unassigned.
Because the name space of single-byte identifiers is so small, the
IANA policy for future additions in the range 0-200 inclusive to the
registry is "Expert Review" as described in [RFC5226]. The IANA
policy for additions in the range 256-65535 inclusive is "First Come
First Served" as described in [RFC5226].
In machine to machine applications, it is not expected that generic
Internet media types such as text/plain, application/xml or
application/octet-stream are useful for real applications in the long
term. It is recommended that M2M applications making use of CoAP
will request new Internet media types from IANA indicating semantic
information about how to create or parse a payload. For example, a
Smart Energy application payload carried as XML might request a more
specific type like application/se+xml or application/se-exi.
12.4. URI Scheme Registration
This document requests the registration of the Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) scheme "coap". The registration request complies
with [RFC4395].
URI scheme name.
coap
Status.
Permanent.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
URI scheme syntax.
Defined in Section 6.1 of [RFCXXXX].
URI scheme semantics.
The "coap" URI scheme provides a way to identify resources that
are potentially accessible over the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP). The resources can be located by contacting the
governing CoAP server and operated on by sending CoAP requests to
the server. This scheme can thus be compared to the "http" URI
scheme [RFC2616]. See Section 6 of [RFCXXXX] for the details of
operation.
Encoding considerations.
The scheme encoding conforms to the encoding rules established for
URIs in [RFC3986], i.e. internationalized and reserved characters
are expressed using UTF-8-based percent-encoding.
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name.
The scheme is used by CoAP endpoints to access CoAP resources.
Interoperability considerations.
None.
Security considerations.
See Section 11.1 of [RFCXXXX].
Contact.
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Author/Change controller.
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References.
[RFCXXXX]
12.5. Secure URI Scheme Registration
This document requests the registration of the Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) scheme "coaps". The registration request complies
with [RFC4395].
URI scheme name.
coaps
Status.
Permanent.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
URI scheme syntax.
Defined in Section 6.2 of [RFCXXXX].
URI scheme semantics.
The "coaps" URI scheme provides a way to identify resources that
are potentially accessible over the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for
transport security. The resources can be located by contacting
the governing CoAP server and operated on by sending CoAP requests
to the server. This scheme can thus be compared to the "https"
URI scheme [RFC2616]. See Section 6 of [RFCXXXX] for the details
of operation.
Encoding considerations.
The scheme encoding conforms to the encoding rules established for
URIs in [RFC3986], i.e. internationalized and reserved characters
are expressed using UTF-8-based percent-encoding.
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name.
The scheme is used by CoAP endpoints to access CoAP resources
using DTLS.
Interoperability considerations.
None.
Security considerations.
See Section 11.1 of [RFCXXXX].
Contact.
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Author/Change controller.
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References.
[RFCXXXX]
12.6. Service Name and Port Number Registration
One of the functions of CoAP is resource discovery: a CoAP client can
ask a CoAP server about the resources offered by it (see Section 7).
To enable resource discovery just based on the knowledge of an IP
address, the CoAP port for resource discovery needs to be
standardized.
IANA has assigned the port number 5683 and the service name "coap",
in accordance with [RFC6335].
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Besides unicast, CoAP can be used with both multicast and anycast.
Service Name.
coap
Transport Protocol.
UDP
Assignee.
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact.
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description.
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Reference.
[RFCXXXX]
Port Number.
5683
12.7. Secure Service Name and Port Number Registration
CoAP resource discovery may also be provided using the DTLS-secured
CoAP "coaps" scheme. Thus the CoAP port for secure resource
discovery needs to be standardized.
This document requests the assignment of the port number
[IANA_TBD_PORT] and the service name "coaps", in accordance with
[RFC6335].
Besides unicast, DTLS-secured CoAP can be used with anycast.
Service Name.
coaps
Transport Protocol.
UDP
Assignee.
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact.
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Description.
DTLS-secured CoAP
Reference.
[RFCXXXX]
Port Number.
[IANA_TBD_PORT]
12.8. Multicast Address Registration
Section 8, "Multicast CoAP", defines the use of multicast. This
document requests the assignment of the following multicast addresses
for use by CoAP nodes:
IPv4 -- "All CoAP Nodes" address [TBD1], from the IPv4 Multicast
Address Space Registry. As the address is used for discovery that
may span beyond a single network, it should come from the
Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1.x, RFC 5771).
IPv6 -- "All CoAP Nodes" address [TBD2], from the IPv6 Multicast
Address Space Registry, in the Variable Scope Multicast Addresses
space (RFC3307). Note that there is a distinct multicast address
for each scope that interested CoAP nodes should listen to.
[The explanatory text to be removed upon allocation of the addresses,
except for the note about the distinct multicast addresses.]
13. Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Peter Bigot, Esko Dijk and Cullen Jennings for
substantial contributions to the ideas and text in the document,
along with countless detailed reviews and discussions.
Thanks to Ed Beroset, Angelo P. Castellani, Gilbert Clark, Robert
Cragie, Esko Dijk, Lisa Dussealt, Thomas Fossati, Tom Herbst, Richard
Kelsey, Ari Keranen, Matthias Kovatsch, Salvatore Loreto, Kerry Lynn,
Alexey Melnikov, Guido Moritz, Petri Mutka, Colin O'Flynn, Charles
Palmer, Adriano Pezzuto, Robert Quattlebaum, Akbar Rahman, Eric
Rescorla, David Ryan, Szymon Sasin, Michael Scharf, Dale Seed, Robby
Simpson, Peter van der Stok, Michael Stuber, Linyi Tian, Gilman
Tolle, Matthieu Vial and Alper Yegin for helpful comments and
discussions that have shaped the document.
Some of the text has been borrowed from the working documents of the
IETF httpbis working group.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.farrell-decade-ni]
Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 (work in progress),
August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-tls-oob-pubkey]
Wouters, P., Gilmore, J., Weiler, S., Kivinen, T., and H.
Tschofenig, "Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for
Transport Layer Security", draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-04
(work in progress), July 2012.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.
[RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
September 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3676] Gellens, R., "The Text/Plain Format and DelSp Parameters",
RFC 3676, February 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
[RFC4279] Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites
for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4279,
December 2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC4309] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM
Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4309, December 2005.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 4395, February 2006.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
[RFC5147] Wilde, E. and M. Duerst, "URI Fragment Identifiers for the
text/plain Media Type", RFC 5147, April 2008.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, March 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
April 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010.
[RFC6066] Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, August 2012.
14.2. Informative References
[EUI64] "GUIDELINES FOR 64-BIT GLOBAL IDENTIFIER (EUI-64)
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY", April 2010, <http://
standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html>.
[EXIMIME] "Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) Format 1.0",
December 2009, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/
CR-exi-20091208/#mediaTypeRegistration>.
[I-D.allman-tcpm-rto-consider]
Allman, M., "Retransmission Timeout Considerations",
draft-allman-tcpm-rto-consider-01 (work in progress),
May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-core-block]
Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Blockwise transfers in CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-block-09 (work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-observe-06 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal]
Kivinen, T., "Minimal IKEv2",
draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal-00 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[I-D.mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc]
McGrew, D., Bailey, D., Campagna, M., and R. Dugal, "AES-
CCM ECC Cipher Suites for TLS",
draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-05 (work in progress),
July 2012.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine, 2000, <http://
www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
fielding_dissertation.pdf>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
[RFC4492] Blake-Wilson, S., Bolyard, N., Gupta, V., Hawk, C., and B.
Moeller, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites
for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4492, May 2006.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405,
November 2008.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, August 2011.
[RFC6655] McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655, July 2012.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Appendix A. Examples
This section gives a number of short examples with message flows for
GET requests. These examples demonstrate the basic operation, the
operation in the presence of retransmissions, and multicast.
Figure 16 shows a basic GET request causing a piggy-backed response:
The client sends a Confirmable GET request for the resource
coap://server/temperature to the server with a Message ID of 0x7d34.
The request includes one Uri-Path Option (Delta 0 + 11 = 11, Length
11, Value "temperature"); the Token is left at its default value
(empty). This request is a total of 16 bytes long. A 2.05 (Content)
response is returned in the Acknowledgement message that acknowledges
the Confirmable request, echoing both the Message ID 0x7d34 and the
(implicitly empty) Token value. The response includes a Payload of
"22.3 C" and is 10 bytes long.
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d34)
| GET | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d34)
| 2.05 | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 0 | 1 | GET=1 | MID=0x7d34 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 11 | 11 | "temperature" (11 B) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.05=69 | MID=0x7d34 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "22.3 C" (6 B) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: Confirmable request; piggy-backed response
Figure 17 shows a similar example, but with the inclusion of an
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
explicit Token Option (Delta 11 + 8 = 19, Length 1, Value 0x20) in
the request and (Jump 15 + 4 = 19) in the response, increasing the
sizes to 18 and 12 bytes, respectively.
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d35)
| GET | Token: 0x20
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d35)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x20
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 0 | 2 | GET=1 | MID=0x7d35 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 11 | 11 | "temperature" (11 B) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 8 | 1 | 0x20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2.05=69 | MID=0x7d35 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Jump 15 = 0xf1 | 4 | 1 | 0x20 | "22.3 C" (6 B) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Confirmable request; piggy-backed response
In Figure 18, the Confirmable GET request is lost. After ACK_TIMEOUT
seconds, the client retransmits the request, resulting in a piggy-
backed response as in the previous example.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Client Server
| |
| |
+----X | Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d36)
| GET | Token: 0x31
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
TIMEOUT |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d36)
| GET | Token: 0x31
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d36)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x31
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
Figure 18: Confirmable request (retransmitted); piggy-backed response
In Figure 19, the first Acknowledgement message from the server to
the client is lost. After ACK_TIMEOUT seconds, the client
retransmits the request.
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d37)
| GET | Token: 0x42
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
| X----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d37)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x42
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
TIMEOUT |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d37)
| GET | Token: 0x42
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=ACK, Code=69, MID=0x7d37)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x42
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
Figure 19: Confirmable request; piggy-backed response (retransmitted)
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
In Figure 20, the server acknowledges the Confirmable request and
sends a 2.05 (Content) response separately in a Confirmable message.
Note that the Acknowledgement message and the Confirmable response do
not necessarily arrive in the same order as they were sent. The
client acknowledges the Confirmable response.
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d38)
| GET | Token: 0x53
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<- - -+ Header: (T=ACK, Code=0, MID=0x7d38)
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=CON, Code=69, MID=0xad7b)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x53
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
| |
+- - ->| Header: (T=ACK, Code=0, MID=0xad7b)
| |
Figure 20: Confirmable request; separate response
Figure 21 shows an example where the client loses its state (e.g.,
crashes and is rebooted) right after sending a Confirmable request,
so the separate response arriving some time later comes unexpected.
In this case, the client rejects the Confirmable response with a
Reset message. Note that the unexpected ACK is silently ignored.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=CON, Code=1, MID=0x7d39)
| GET | Token: 0x64
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
CRASH |
| |
|<- - -+ Header: (T=ACK, Code=0, MID=0x7d39)
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=CON, Code=69, MID=0xad7c)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x64
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
| |
+- - ->| Header: (T=RST, Code=0, MID=0xad7c)
| |
Figure 21: Confirmable request; separate response (unexpected)
Figure 22 shows a basic GET request where the request and the
response are non-confirmable, so both may be lost without notice.
Client Server
| |
| |
+----->| Header: GET (T=NON, Code=1, MID=0x7d40)
| GET | Token: 0x75
| | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| |
| |
|<-----+ Header: 2.05 Content (T=NON, Code=69, MID=0xad7d)
| 2.05 | Token: 0x75
| | Payload: "22.3 C"
| |
Figure 22: Non-confirmable request; Non-confirmable response
In Figure 23, the client sends a Non-confirmable GET request to a
multicast address: all nodes in link-local scope. There are 3
servers on the link: A, B and C. Servers A and B have a matching
resource, therefore they send back a Non-confirmable 2.05 (Content)
response. The response sent by B is lost. C does not have matching
response, therefore it sends a Non-confirmable 4.04 (Not Found)
response.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Client ff02::1 A B C
| | | | |
| | | | |
+------>| | | | Header: GET (T=NON, Code=1, MID=0x7d41)
| GET | | | | Token: 0x86
| | | | Uri-Path: "temperature"
| | | |
| | | |
|<------------+ | | Header: 2.05 (T=NON, Code=69, MID=0x60b1)
| 2.05 | | | Token: 0x86
| | | | Payload: "22.3 C"
| | | |
| | | |
| X------------+ | Header: 2.05 (T=NON, Code=69, MID=0x01a0)
| 2.05 | | | Token: 0x86
| | | | Payload: "20.9 C"
| | | |
| | | |
|<------------------+ Header: 4.04 (T=NON, Code=132, MID=0x952a)
| 4.04 | | | Token: 0x86
| | | |
Figure 23: Non-confirmable request (multicast); Non-confirmable
response
Appendix B. URI Examples
The following examples demonstrate different sets of Uri options, and
the result after constructing an URI from them.
o coap://[2001:db8::2:1]/
Destination IP Address = [2001:db8::2:1]
Destination UDP Port = 5683
o coap://example.net/
Destination IP Address = [2001:db8::2:1]
Destination UDP Port = 5683
Uri-Host = "example.net"
o coap://example.net/.well-known/core
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Destination IP Address = [2001:db8::2:1]
Destination UDP Port = 5683
Uri-Host = "example.net"
Uri-Path = ".well-known"
Uri-Path = "core"
o coap://
xn--18j4d.example/%E3%81%93%E3%82%93%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A1%E3%81%AF
Destination IP Address = [2001:db8::2:1]
Destination UDP Port = 5683
Uri-Host = "xn--18j4d.example"
Uri-Path = the string composed of the Unicode characters U+3053
U+3093 U+306b U+3061 U+306f, usually represented in UTF-8 as
E38193E38293E381ABE381A1E381AF hexadecimal
o coap://198.51.100.1:61616//%2F//?%2F%2F&?%26
Destination IP Address = 198.51.100.1
Destination UDP Port = 61616
Uri-Path = ""
Uri-Path = "/"
Uri-Path = ""
Uri-Path = ""
Uri-Query = "//"
Uri-Query = "?&"
Appendix C. Changelog
Changed from ietf-11 to ietf-12:
o Extended options to support lengths of up to 1034 bytes (#202).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Added new Jump mechanism for options and removed Fenceposting
(#214).
o Added new IANA option number registration policy (#214).
o Added Proxy Unsafe/Safe and Cache-Key masking to option numbers
(#241).
o Re-numbered option numbers to use Unsafe/Safe and Cache-Key
compliant numbers (#241).
o Defined NSTART and restricted the value to 1 with a MUST (#215).
o Defined PROBING_RATE and set it to 1 Byte/second (#215).
o Defined DEFAULT_LEISURE (#246).
o Renamed Content-Type into Content-Format, and Media Type registry
into Content-Format registry.
o A large number of small editorial changes, clarifications and
improvements have been made.
Changed from ietf-10 to ietf-11:
o Expanded section 4.8 on Transmission Parameters, and used the
derived values defined there (#201). Changed parameter names to
be shorter and more to the point.
o Several more small editorial changes, clarifications and
improvements have been made.
Changed from ietf-09 to ietf-10:
o Option deltas are restricted to 0 to 14; the option delta 15 is
used exclusively for the end-of-options marker (#239).
o Option numbers that are a multiple of 14 are not reserved, but are
required to have an empty default value (#212).
o Fixed misleading language that was introduced in 5.10.2 in coap-07
re Uri-Host and Uri-Port (#208).
o Segments and arguments can have a length of zero characters
(#213).
o The Location-* options describe together describe one location.
The location is a relative URI, not an "absolute path URI" (#218).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o The value of the Location-Path Option must not be '.' or '..'
(#218).
o Added a sentence on constructing URIs from Location-* options
(#231).
o Reserved option numbers for future Location-* options (#230).
o Fixed response codes with payload inconsistency (#233).
o Added advice on default values for critical options (#207).
o Clarified use of identifiers in RawPublicKey Mode Provisioning
(#222).
o Moved "Securing CoAP" out of the "Security Considerations" (#229).
o Added "All CoAP Nodes" multicast addresses to "IANA
Considerations" (#216).
o Over 100 small editorial changes, clarifications and improvements
have been made.
Changed from ietf-08 to ietf-09:
o Improved consistency of statements about RST on NON: RST is a
valid response to a NON message (#183).
o Clarified that the protocol constants can be configured for
specific application environments.
o Added implementation note recommending piggy-backing whenever
possible (#182).
o Added a content-encoding column to the media type registry (#181).
o Minor improvements to Appendix D.
o Added text about multicast response suppression (#177).
o Included the new End-of-options Marker (#176).
o Added a reference to draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey and updated the RPK
text accordingly.
Changed from ietf-07 to ietf-08:
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Clarified matching rules for messages (#175)
o Fixed a bug in Section 8.2.2 on Etags (#168)
o Added an IP address spoofing threat analysis contribution (#167)
o Re-focused the security section on raw public keys (#166)
o Added an 4.06 error to Accept (#165)
Changed from ietf-06 to ietf-07:
o application/link-format added to Media types registration (#160)
o Moved content-type attribute to the document from link-format.
o Added coaps scheme and DTLS-secured CoAP default port (#154)
o Allowed 0-length Content-type options (#150)
o Added congestion control recommendations (#153)
o Improved text on PUT/POST response payloads (#149)
o Added an Accept option for content-negotiation (#163)
o Added If-Match and If-None-Match options (#155)
o Improved Token Option explanation (#147)
o Clarified mandatory to implement security (#156)
o Added first come first server policy for 2-byte Media type codes
(#161)
o Clarify matching rules for messages and tokens (#151)
o Changed OPTIONS and TRACE to always return 501 in HTTP-CoAP
mapping (#164)
Changed from ietf-05 to ietf-06:
o HTTP mapping section improved with the minimal protocol standard
text for CoAP-HTTP and HTTP-CoAP forward proxying (#137).
o Eradicated percent-encoding by including one Uri-Query Option per
&-delimited argument in a query.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Allowed RST message in reply to a NON message with unexpected
token (#135).
o Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses (#134).
o 50% jitter added to the initial retransmit timer (#142).
o DTLS cipher suites aligned with ZigBee IP, DTLS clarified as
default CoAP security mechanism (#138, #139)
o Added a minimal reference to draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal
(#140).
o Clarified the comparison of UTF-8s (#136).
o Minimized the initial media type registry (#101).
Changed from ietf-04 to ietf-05:
o Renamed Immediate into Piggy-backed and Deferred into Separate --
should finally end the confusion on what this is about.
o GET requests now return a 2.05 (Content) response instead of 2.00
(OK) response (#104).
o Added text to allow 2.02 (Deleted) responses in reply to POST
requests (#105).
o Improved message deduplication rules (#106).
o Section added on message size implementation considerations
(#103).
o Clarification made on human readable error payloads (#109).
o Definition of CoAP methods improved (#108).
o Max-Age removed from requests (#107).
o Clarified uniqueness of tokens (#112).
o Location-Query Option added (#113).
o ETag length set to 1-8 bytes (#123).
o Clarified relation between elective/critical and option numbers
(#110).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Defined when to update Version header field (#111).
o URI scheme registration improved (#102).
o Added review guidelines for new CoAP codes and numbers.
Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-04:
o Major document reorganization (#51, #63, #71, #81).
o Max-age length set to 0-4 bytes (#30).
o Added variable unsigned integer definition (#31).
o Clarification made on human readable error payloads (#50).
o Definition of POST improved (#52).
o Token length changed to 0-8 bytes (#53).
o Section added on multiplexing CoAP, DTLS and STUN (#56).
o Added cross-protocol attack considerations (#61).
o Used new Immediate/Deferred response definitions (#73).
o Improved request/response matching rules (#74).
o Removed unnecessary media types and added recommendations for
their use in M2M (#76).
o Response codes changed to base 32 coding, new Y.XX naming (#77).
o References updated as per AD review (#79).
o IANA section completed (#80).
o Proxy-Uri Option added to disambiguate between proxy and non-proxy
requests (#82).
o Added text on critical options in cached states (#83).
o HTTP mapping sections improved (#88).
o Added text on reverse proxies (#72).
o Some security text on multicast added (#54).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Trust model text added to introduction (#58, #60).
o AES-CCM vs. AES-CCB text added (#55).
o Text added about device capabilities (#59).
o DTLS section improvements (#87).
o Caching semantics aligned with RFC2616 (#78).
o Uri-Path Option split into multiple path segments.
o MAX_RETRANSMIT changed to 4 to adjust for RESPONSE_TIME = 2.
Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03:
o Token Option and related use in asynchronous requests added (#25).
o CoAP specific error codes added (#26).
o Erroring out on unknown critical options changed to a MUST (#27).
o Uri-Query Option added.
o Terminology and definitions of URIs improved.
o Security section completed (#22).
Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02:
o Sending an error on a critical option clarified (#18).
o Clarification on behavior of PUT and idempotent operations (#19).
o Use of Uri-Authority clarified along with server processing rules;
Uri-Scheme Option removed (#20, #23).
o Resource discovery section removed to a separate CoRE Link Format
draft (#21).
o Initial security section outline added.
Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01:
o New cleaner transaction message model and header (#5).
o Removed subscription while being designed (#1).
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Section 2 re-written (#3).
o Text added about use of short URIs (#4).
o Improved header option scheme (#5, #14).
o Date option removed whiled being designed (#6).
o New text for CoAP default port (#7).
o Completed proxying section (#8).
o Completed resource discovery section (#9).
o Completed HTTP mapping section (#10).
o Several new examples added (#11).
o URI split into 3 options (#12).
o MIME type defined for link-format (#13, #16).
o New text on maximum message size (#15).
o Location Option added.
Changes from shelby-01 to ietf-00:
o Removed the TCP binding section, left open for the future.
o Fixed a bug in the example.
o Marked current Sub/Notify as (Experimental) while under WG
discussion.
o Fixed maximum datagram size to 1280 for both IPv4 and IPv6 (for
CoAP-CoAP proxying to work).
o Temporarily removed the Magic Byte header as TCP is no longer
included as a binding.
o Removed the Uri-code Option as different URI encoding schemes are
being discussed.
o Changed the rel= field to desc= for resource discovery.
o Changed the maximum message size to 1024 bytes to allow for IP/UDP
headers.
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
o Made the URI slash optimization and method idempotence MUSTs
o Minor editing and bug fixing.
Changes from shelby-00 to shelby-01:
o Unified the message header and added a notify message type.
o Renamed methods with HTTP names and removed the NOTIFY method.
o Added a number of options field to the header.
o Combines the Option Type and Length into an 8-bit field.
o Added the magic byte header.
o Added new ETag Option.
o Added new Date Option.
o Added new Subscription Option.
o Completed the HTTP Code - CoAP Code mapping table appendix.
o Completed the Content-type Identifier appendix and tables.
o Added more simplifications for URI support.
o Initial subscription and discovery sections.
o A Flag requirements simplified.
Authors' Addresses
Zach Shelby
Sensinode
Kidekuja 2
Vuokatti 88600
Finland
Phone: +358407796297
Email: zach@sensinode.com
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) October 2012
Klaus Hartke
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63905
Email: hartke@tzi.org
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Brian Frank
SkyFoundry
Richmond, VA
USA
Phone:
Email: brian@skyfoundry.com
Shelby, et al. Expires April 4, 2013 [Page 108]