Status of CoAP TCP/TLS

Author: Jaime Jiménez

Tentative Timeline

• Shepherd Writeup
• Q/A
  • Open Issues.
  • Are there implementations of the draft?
  • IPR declaration.
• IESG submission @timestamp(2017-03-21 09:40).

Note:
There a lengthy summary for v-02 before Brian's merger.

Editor's Copy 2017-02-20

• Latest diff available

• Github page

• Open Issues Discussion Minutes

Shepherd Writeup (in progress)

Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez, jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com
Area Director: Alexey Melnikov, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm

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

Some environments benefit from the availability of CoAP carried over reliable transports such as TCP or TLS. This document outlines the changes required to use CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets transports. It also formally updates RFC7641 for use with these transports.

The document is intended as an Standards Track RFC.

Review and Consensus

The document has gone through multiple expert reviews over the years and was last presented on multiple IETF sessions.

Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document. I am not aware of any IPR discussion about this document on the CoRE WG.

Other Points

• The issues solved in the last iteration can be found in the github repository.

• There will be a new submission v08 that will contain minor changes and a small clarification for the bi-directional channel part.

Checklist

• Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
• Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
• Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
• Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
• Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? URI-Scheme needs to be checked, wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
• Has the shepherd performed automated checks -- idnits (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist), checks of BNF rules, XML code and schemas, MIB definitions, and so on -- and determined that the document passes the tests? There was a typo on the ABNF, corrected on the editor's copy
• Has each author stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79?
• Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified? RFC7959 has to be changed to normative during AD-review
• Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state? RFC7959 has to be changed to normative during AD-review
• If publication of this document changes the status of any existing RFCs, are those RFCs listed on the title page header, and are the changes listed in the abstract and discussed (explained, not just mentioned) in the introduction? Yes RFC7641, seems to be sufficient.

• If this is a bis document, have all of the errata been considered?
  Does not apply

• IANA Considerations:

  • Are the IANA Considerations clear and complete? Remember that IANA have to understand unambiguously what's being requested, so they can perform the required actions.
    URI-Scheme needs to be checked, wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org.
RFC7301 seems not to have a specific contact email.
RFC5226 First Come First Served IANA registration policy.
RFC6335 IESG can do the update.

  • Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?

  • Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?

  • Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?

  • For registrations that require expert review (policies of Expert Review or Specification Required), have you or the working group had any early review done, to make sure the requests are ready for last call?
    in progress

  • For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives?
    Section 10.1 "CoAP Signaling Codes". Same policy as for method codes RFC7252

  • Have reasonable registry names been chosen (that will not be confused with those of other registries), and have the initial contents and valid value ranges been clearly specified?