Status Multipart CT

Summary draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-03

Multipart Content-Format for CoAP

The purpose of the draft is to define how to combine representations of various media types into a single message. The draft explains how the encoding is made, which is in form of a collection of CBOR entries with the various media types. For example: [42, h'0123456789abcdef', 0, h'3031323334']

multipart ct can be very useful when observing resources of which no representation is available at the time of the observation. The coap server may use the application/multipart-core media type in order to maintain the same Content-Format until the actual response (2.05, 2.03) is produced.

Shepherd Writeup

Summary

Document Shepherd: Jaime Jiménez, jaime.jimenez@ericsson.com

Area Director: Alexey Melnikov, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm

This memo defines application/multipart-core, an application-independent media-type that can be used to combine representations of zero or more different media types into a single message, such as a CoAP request or response body, with minimal framing overhead, each along with a CoAP Content-Format identifier.

The document is intended for Standards Track.

Review and Consensus

The document has gone through multiple expert reviews and has been discussed on multiple IETF meetings. Before the last IETF the WGLC was completed.

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.

Checklist

• [x] Does the shepherd stand behind the document and think the document is ready for publication?
• [x] Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
• [x] Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
• [x] Is the intent of the document accurately and adequately explained in the introduction?
• [x] Have all required formal reviews (MIB Doctor, Media Type, URI, etc.) been requested and/or completed? Mail sent to media-types@iana.org, waiting for answer. New entry multipart-core needs verification by media-types@iana.org.
• [x] 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? no issues found
• [x] 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?
• [x] Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative, and does the shepherd agree with how they have been classified? Both seem correct to me
• [x] Are all normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement and are otherwise in a clear state?
• [x] 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? Does not apply

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

• IANA Considerations:

  • [x] 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. The new application/multipart-core media type seems well defined. So is TBD1, which is the requested Content-Format, as shown on section 5.2.
  • [x] Are all protocol extensions that the document makes associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries?
  • [x] Are all IANA registries referred to by their exact names (check them in http://www.iana.org/protocols/ to be sure)?
  • [x] Have you checked that any registrations made by this document correctly follow the policies and procedures for the appropriate registries?
  • [x] 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?
  • [x] For any new registries that this document creates, has the working group actively chosen the allocation procedures and policies and discussed the alternatives? no new registries
  • [x] 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?