ARM

150 Rose Orchard San Jose 95134 USA +1-408-203-9434 zach.shelby@arm.com

SmartThings

665 Clyde Avenue Mountain View 94043 USA +1-707-502-5136 Michael.Koster@smartthings.com

Universitaet Bremen TZI

Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany +49-421-218-63921 cabo@tzi.org

consultant

+31-492474673 (Netherlands), +33-966015248 (France) consultancy@vanderstok.org www.vanderstok.org

Hollandstr. 12/4 1020 Austria +43-664-9790639 christian@amsuess.com

Internet CoRE CoRE, Web Linking, Resource Discovery, Resource Directory In many M2M applications, direct discovery of resources is not practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where multicast traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by employing an entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which hosts descriptions of resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be performed for those resources. This document specifies the web interfaces that a Resource Directory supports in order for web servers to discover the RD and to register, maintain, lookup and remove resource descriptions. Furthermore, new link attributes useful in conjunction with an RD are defined.

The work on Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) 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). CoRE is aimed at machine-to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building automation. The discovery of resources offered by a constrained server is very important in machine-to-machine applications where there are no humans in the loop and static interfaces result in fragility. The discovery of resources provided by an HTTP Web Server is typically called Web Linking . The use of Web Linking for the description and discovery of resources hosted by constrained web servers is specified by the CoRE Link Format . However, only describes how to discover resources from the web server that hosts them by querying /.well-known/core. In many M2M scenarios, direct discovery of resources is not practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where multicast traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by employing an entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which hosts descriptions of resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be performed for those resources. This document specifies the web interfaces that a Resource Directory supports in order for web servers to discover the RD and to register, maintain, lookup and remove resource descriptions. Furthermore, new link attributes useful in conjunction with a Resource Directory are defined. Although the examples in this document show the use of these interfaces with CoAP , they can be applied in an equivalent manner to HTTP .

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 . The term “byte” is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for “octet”. This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms and concepts that are discussed in , and . Readers should also be familiar with the terms and concepts discussed in . To describe the REST interfaces defined in this specification, the URI Template format is used . This specification makes use of the following additional terminology: The expression “a URI-reference is resolved against a base URI” is used to describe the process of Section 5.2. Noteworthy corner cases are that resolving an absolute URI against any base URI gives the original URI, and that resolving an empty URI reference gives the base URI. A web entity that stores information about web resources and implements the REST interfaces defined in this specification for registration and lookup of those resources. In the context of a Resource Directory, a sector is a logical grouping of endpoints. The abbreviation “d” is used for the sector in query parameters for compatibility with deployed implementations. A group in the Resource Directory specifies a set of endpoints that are enabled with the same multicast address for the purpose of efficient group communications. All groups within a sector have unique names. Endpoint (EP) is a term used to describe a web server or client in . In the context of this specification an endpoint is used to describe a web server that registers resources to the Resource Directory. An endpoint is identified by its endpoint name, which is included during registration, and has a unique name within the associated sector of the registration. The Base URI of a Registration is a URI that typically gives scheme and authority information about an Endpoint. The Registration Base URI is provided by the Endpoint at registration time, and is used by the Resource Directory to resolve relative references inside the registration into absolute URIs. The target of a link is the destination address (URI) of the link. It is sometimes identified with “href=”, or displayed as <target>. Relative targets need resolving with respect to the Base URI (section 5.2 of ). This use of the term Target is consistent with ’s use of the term. The context of a link is the source address (URI) of the link, and describes which resource is linked to the target. A link’s context is made explicit in serialized links as the “anchor=” attribute. This use of the term Context is consistent with ’s use of the term. A resource in the Resource Directory (RD) containing registration resources. A resource in the RD containing registration resources of the Endpoints that form a group. A resource in the RD that contains information about an Endpoint and its links. Commissioning Tool (CT) is a device that assists during the installation of the network by assigning values to parameters, naming endpoints and groups, or adapting the installation to the needs of the applications. Registree-ep is the endpoint that is registered into the RD. The registree-ep can register itself, or a CT registers the registree-ep. Resource Directory Address Option. For several operations, interface descriptions are given in list form; those describe the operation participants, request codes, URIs, content formats and outcomes. Those templates contain normative content in their Interaction, Method, URI Template and URI Template Variables sections as well as the details of the Success condition. The additional sections on options like Content-Format and on Failure codes give typical cases that the implementing parties should be prepared to deal with. Those serve to illustrate the typical responses to readers who are not yet familiar with all the details of CoAP based interfaces; they do not limit what a server may respond under atypical circumstances.

The Resource Directory is primarily a tool to make discovery operations more efficient than querying /.well-known/core on all connected device, or across boundaries that would be limiting those operations. It provides a cache (in the high-level sense, not as defined in /) of data that could otherwise only be obtained by directly querying the /.well-known/core resource on the target device, or by accessing those resources with a multicast request. From that, it follows that only information should be stored in the resource directory that is discovered from querying the described device’s /.well-known/core resource directly. It also follows that data in the resource directory can only be provided by the device whose descriptions are cached or a dedicated Commissioning Tool (CT). These CTs are thought to act on behalf of agents too constrained, or generally unable, to present that information themselves. No other client can modify data in the resource directory. Changes in the Resource Directory do not propagate automatically back to the web server from where the links originated.

The resource directory architecture is illustrated in . A Resource Directory (RD) is used as a repository for Web Links about resources hosted on other web servers, which are called endpoints (EP). An endpoint is a web server associated with a scheme, IP address and port. A physical node may host one or more endpoints. The RD implements a set of REST interfaces for endpoints to register and maintain sets of Web Links (called resource directory registration entries), and for clients to lookup resources from the RD or maintain groups. Endpoints themselves can also act as clients. An RD can be logically segmented by the use of Sectors. The set of endpoints grouped for group communication can be defined by the RD or configured by a Commissioning Tool. This information hierarchy is shown in . A mechanism to discover an RD using CoRE Link Format is defined. Endpoints proactively register and maintain resource directory registration entries on the RD, which are soft state and need to be periodically refreshed. An endpoint uses specific interfaces to register, update and remove a resource directory registration entry. It is also possible for an RD to fetch Web Links from endpoints and add them as resource directory registration entries. At the first registration of a set of entries, a “registration resource” is created, the location of which is returned to the registering endpoint. The registering endpoint uses this registration resource to manage the contents of registration entries. A lookup interface for discovering any of the Web Links held in the RD is provided using the CoRE Link Format.

The Entity-Relationship (ER) models shown in and model the contents of /.well-known/core and the resource directory respectively, with entity-relationship diagrams . Entities (rectangles) are used for concepts that exist independently. Attributes (ovals) are used for concepts that exist only in connection with a related entity. Relations (diamonds) give a semantic meaning to the relation between entities. Numbers specify the cardinality of the relations. Some of the attribute values are URIs. Those values are always full URIs and never relative references in the information model. They can, however, be expressed as relative references in serializations, and often are. These models provide an abstract view of the information expressed in link-format documents and a Resource Directory. They cover the concepts, but not necessarily all details of an RD’s operation; they are meant to give an overview, and not be a template for implementations.

\\\\\\\\/////// | | 0+ +--------------------+ | link | +--------------------+ | | 1 oooooooo +-----o target o | oooooooo oooooooooooo 0+ | o target o--------+ o attribute o | 0+ oooooo oooooooooooo +-----o rel o | oooooo | | 1 ooooooooo +-----o context o ooooooooo ]]>

The model shown in models the contents of /.well-known/core which contains: a set of links belonging to the hosting web server The web server is free to choose links it deems appropriate to be exposed in its .well-known/core. Typically, the links describe resources that are served by the host, but the set can also contain links to resources on other servers (see examples in page 14). The set does not necessarily contain links to all resources served by the host. A link has the following attributes (see ): Zero or more link relations: They describe relations between the link context and the link target. In link-format serialization, they are expressed as space-separated values in the “rel” attribute, and default to “hosts”. A link context URI: It defines the source of the relation, eg. who “hosts” something. In link-format serialization, it is expressed in the “anchor” attribute. It defaults to that document’s URI. A link target URI: It defines the destination of the relation (eg. what is hosted), and is the topic of all target attributes. In link-format serialization, it is expressed between angular brackets, and sometimes called the “href”. Other target attributes (eg. resource type (rt), interface (if), or content-type (ct)). These provide additional information about the target URI.

----------------| group |------o d o \\\\\///// +--------+ ooooo | | 0+ 0+ | | ooooooo 1 +---------------+ 1+ ///////\\\\\\ o base o-------| registration |---------< composed of > ooooooo +---------------+ \\\\\\\////// | | 1 | +--------------+ oooooooo 1 | | o href o----+ /////\\\\ oooooooo | < contains > | \\\\\///// oooooooo 1 | | o ep o----+ | 0+ oooooooo | +------------------+ | | link | oooooooo 0-1 | +------------------+ o d o----+ | oooooooo | | 1 oooooooo | +-----o target o oooooooo 1 | | oooooooo o lt o----+ ooooooooooo 0+ | oooooooo | o target o-----+ | o attribute o | 0+ oooooo ooooooooooo 0+ | ooooooooooo +-----o rel o o endpoint o----+ | oooooo o attribute o | ooooooooooo | 1 ooooooooo +----o context o ooooooooo ]]>

The model shown in models the contents of the resource directory which contains in addition to /.well-known/core: 0 to n Registration (entries) of endpoints, 0 or more Groups A Group has: a group name (“gp”), optionally a sector (abbreviated “d” for historical reasons), a group resource location inside the RD (“href”), zero or one multicast addresses expressed as a base URI (“base”), and is composed of zero or more registrations (endpoints). A registration is associated with one endpoint. A registration can be part of 0 or more Groups . A registration defines a set of links as defined for /.well-known/core. A Registration has six types of attributes: a unique endpoint name (“ep”) a Registration Base URI (“base”, a URI typically describing the scheme://authority part) a lifetime (“lt”), a registration resource location inside the RD (“href”), optionally a sector (“d”) optional additional endpoint attributes (from ) The cardinality of “base” is currently 1; future documents are invited to extend the RD specification to support multiple values (eg. ). Its value is used as a Base URI when resolving URIs in the links contained in the endpoint. Links are modelled as they are in .

Over the last few years, mobile operators around the world have focused on development of M2M solutions in order to expand the business to the new type of users: machines. The machines are connected directly to a mobile network using an appropriate embedded wireless interface (GSM/GPRS, WCDMA, LTE) or via a gateway providing short and wide range wireless interfaces. From the system design point of view, the ambition is to design horizontal solutions that can enable utilization of machines in different applications depending on their current availability and capabilities as well as application requirements, thus avoiding silo like solutions. One of the crucial enablers of such design is the ability to discover resources (machines — endpoints) capable of providing required information at a given time or acting on instructions from the end users. Imagine a scenario where endpoints installed on vehicles enable tracking of the position of these vehicles for fleet management purposes and allow monitoring of environment parameters. During the boot-up process endpoints register with a Resource Directory, which is hosted by the mobile operator or somewhere in the cloud. Periodically, these endpoints update their registration and may modify resources they offer. When endpoints are not always connected, for example because they enter a sleep mode, a remote server is usually used to provide proxy access to the endpoints. Mobile apps or web applications for environment monitoring contact the RD, look up the endpoints capable of providing information about the environment using an appropriate set of link parameters, obtain information on how to contact them (URLs of the proxy server), and then initiate interaction to obtain information that is finally processed, displayed on the screen and usually stored in a database. Similarly, fleet management systems provide the appropriate link parameters to the RD to look up for EPs deployed on the vehicles the application is responsible for.

Home and commercial building automation systems can benefit from the use of M2M web services. The discovery requirements of these applications are demanding. Home automation usually relies on run-time discovery to commission the system, whereas in building automation a combination of professional commissioning and run-time discovery is used. Both home and building automation involve peer-to-peer interactions between endpoints, and involve battery-powered sleeping devices.

Resources may be shared through data brokers that have no knowledge beforehand of who is going to consume the data. Resource Directory can be used to hold links about resources and services hosted anywhere to make them discoverable by a general class of applications. For example, environmental and weather sensors that generate data for public consumption may provide the data to an intermediary server, or broker. Sensor data are published to the intermediary upon changes or at regular intervals. Descriptions of the sensors that resolve to links to sensor data may be published to a Resource Directory. Applications wishing to consume the data can use RD Lookup to discover and resolve links to the desired resources and endpoints. The Resource Directory service need not be coupled with the data intermediary service. Mapping of Resource Directories to data intermediaries may be many-to-many. Metadata in web link formats like are supplied by Resource Directories, which may be internally stored as triples, or relation/attribute pairs providing metadata about resource links. External catalogues that are represented in other formats may be converted to common web linking formats for storage and access by Resource Directories. Since it is common practice for these to be URN encoded, simple and lossless structural transforms should generally be sufficient to store external metadata in Resource Directories. The additional features of Resource Directory allow sectors to be defined to enable access to a particular set of resources from particular applications. This provides isolation and protection of sensitive data when needed. Groups may be defined to support efficient data transport.

A (re-)starting device may want to find one or more resource directories to make itself known with. The device may be pre-configured to exercise specific mechanisms for finding the resource directory: It may be configured with a specific IP address for the RD. That IP address may also be an anycast address, allowing the network to forward RD requests to an RD that is topologically close; each target network environment in which some of these preconfigured nodes are to be brought up is then configured with a route for this anycast address that leads to an appropriate RD. (Instead of using an anycast address, a multicast address can also be preconfigured. The RD servers then need to configure one of their interfaces with this multicast address.) It may be configured with a DNS name for the RD and a resource-record type to look up under this name; it can find a DNS server to perform the lookup using the usual mechanisms for finding DNS servers. It may be configured to use a service discovery mechanism such as DNS-SD . The present specification suggests configuring the service with name rd._sub._coap._udp, preferably within the domain of the querying nodes. For cases where the device is not specifically configured with a way to find a resource directory, the network may want to provide a suitable default. If the address configuration of the network is performed via SLAAC, this is provided by the RDAO option . If the address configuration of the network is performed via DHCP, this could be provided via a DHCP option (no such option is defined at the time of writing). Finally, if neither the device nor the network offers any specific configuration, the device may want to employ heuristics to find a suitable resource directory. The present specification does not fully define these heuristics, but suggests a number of candidates: In a 6LoWPAN, just assume the Border Router (6LBR) can act as a resource directory (using the ABRO option to find that ). Confirmation can be obtained by sending a Unicast to coap://[6LBR]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*. In a network that supports multicast well, discovering the RD using a multicast query for /.well-known/core as specified in CoRE Link Format : Sending a Multicast GET to coap://[MCD1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*. RDs within the multicast scope will answer the query. As some of the RD addresses obtained by the methods listed here are just (more or less educated) guesses, endpoints MUST make use of any error messages to very strictly rate-limit requests to candidate IP addresses that don’t work out. For example, an ICMP Destination Unreachable message (and, in particular, the port unreachable code for this message) may indicate the lack of a CoAP server on the candidate host, or a CoAP error response code such as 4.05 “Method Not Allowed” may indicate unwillingness of a CoAP server to act as a directory server. If multiple candidate addresses are discovered, the device may pick any of them initially, unless the discovery method indicates a more precise selection scheme.

The Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO) using IPv6 neighbor Discovery (ND) carries information about the address of the Resource Directory (RD). This information is needed when endpoints cannot discover the Resource Directory with a link-local or realm-local scope multicast address because the endpoint and the RD are separated by a Border Router (6LBR). In many circumstances the availability of DHCP cannot be guaranteed either during commissioning of the network. The presence and the use of the RD is essential during commissioning. It is possible to send multiple RDAO options in one message, indicating as many resource directory addresses. The RDAO format is:

This section defines the required set of REST interfaces between a Resource Directory (RD) and endpoints. Although the examples throughout this section assume the use of CoAP , these REST interfaces can also be realized using HTTP . In all definitions in this section, both CoAP response codes (with dot notation) and HTTP response codes (without dot notation) are shown. An RD implementing this specification MUST support the discovery, registration, update, lookup, and removal interfaces defined in this section. All operations on the contents of the Resource Directory MUST be atomic and idempotent. A resource directory MAY make the information submitted to it available to further directories, if it can ensure that a loop does not form. The protocol used between directories to ensure loop-free operation is outside the scope of this document.

Resource Directory implementations using this specification MUST support the application/link-format content format (ct=40). Resource Directories implementing this specification MAY support additional content formats. Any additional content format supported by a Resource Directory implementing this specification MUST have an equivalent serialization in the application/link-format content format.

Before an endpoint can make use of an RD, it must first know the RD’s address and port, and the URI path information for its REST APIs. This section defines discovery of the RD and its URIs using the well-known interface of the CoRE Link Format . A complete set of RD discovery methods is described in . Discovery of the RD registration URI path is performed by sending either a multicast or unicast GET request to /.well-known/core and including a Resource Type (rt) parameter with the value “core.rd” in the query string. Likewise, a Resource Type parameter value of “core.rd-lookup*” is used to discover the URIs for RD Lookup operations, and “core.rd-group” is used to discover the URI path for RD Group operations. Upon success, the response will contain a payload with a link format entry for each RD function discovered, indicating the URI of the RD function returned and the corresponding Resource Type. When performing multicast discovery, the multicast IP address used will depend on the scope required and the multicast capabilities of the network. A Resource Directory MAY provide hints about the content-formats it supports in the links it exposes or registers, using the “ct” link attribute, as shown in the example below. Clients MAY use these hints to select alternate content-formats for interaction with the Resource Directory. HTTP does not support multicast and consequently only unicast discovery can be supported using HTTP. Links to Resource Directories MAY be registered in other Resource Directories. The well-known entry points SHOULD be provided to enable the bootstrapping of unicast discovery. An implementation of this resource directory specification MUST support query filtering for the rt parameter as defined in . While the link targets in this discovery step are often expressed in path-absolute form, this is not a requirement. Clients SHOULD therefore accept URIs of all schemes they support, both in absolute and relative forms, and not limit the set of discovered URIs to those hosted at the address used for URI discovery. The URI Discovery operation can yield multiple URIs of a given resource type. The client can use any of the discovered addresses initially. The discovery request interface is specified as follows (this is exactly the Well-Known Interface of Section 4, with the additional requirement that the server MUST support query filtering): EP and Client -> RD GET /.well-known/core{?rt} Resource Type (optional). MAY contain one of the values “core.rd”, “core.rd-lookup*”, “core.rd-lookup-res”, “core.rd-lookup-ep”, “core.rd-lookup-gp”, “core.rd-group” or “core.rd*” application/link-format (if any) application/link-format+json (if any) application/link-format+cbor (if any) The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.05 “Content” or 200 “OK” with an application/link-format, application/link-format+json, or application/link-format+cbor payload containing one or more matching entries for the RD resource. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request” is returned in case of a malformed request for a unicast request. No error response to a multicast request. YES (Unicast only) The following example shows an endpoint discovering an RD using this interface, thus learning that the directory resource is, in this example, at /rd, and that the content-format delivered by the server hosting the resource is application/link-format (ct=40). Note that it is up to the RD to choose its RD resource paths.

;rt="core.rd";ct=40, ;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct=40, ;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct=40, ;rt="core.rd-lookup-gp";ct=40, ;rt="core.rd-group";ct=40 ]]>

The following example shows the way of indicating that a client may request alternate content-formats. The Content-Format code attribute “ct” MAY include a space-separated sequence of Content-Format codes as specified in Section 7.2.1 of , indicating that multiple content-formats are available. The example below shows the required Content-Format 40 (application/link-format) indicated as well as the CBOR and JSON representation of link format. The RD resource paths /rd, /rd-lookup, and /rd-group are example values. The server in this example also indicates that it is capable of providing observation on resource lookups. [ The RFC editor is asked to replace these and later occurrences of TBD64 and TBD504 with the numeric ID values assigned by IANA to application/link-format+cbor and application/link-format+json, respectively, as they are defined in I-D.ietf-core-links-json. ]

;rt="core.rd";ct="40 65225", ;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct="40 TBD64 TBD504";obs, ;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct="40 TBD64 TBD504", ;rt="core.rd-lookup-gp";ct=40 TBD64 TBD504", ;rt="core.rd-group";ct="40 TBD64 TBD504" ]]>

From a management and maintenance perspective, it is necessary to identify the components that constitute the server. The identification refers to information about for example client-server incompatibilities, supported features, required updates and other aspects. The URI discovery address, a described in section 4 of can be used to find the identification. It would typically be stored in an implementation information link (as described in ):

; rel="impl-info" ]]>

Note that depending on the particular server’s architecture, such a link could be anchored at the server’s root, at the discovery site (as in this example) or at individual RD components. The latter is to be expected when different applications are run on the same server.

After discovering the location of an RD, a registree-ep or CT MAY register the resources of the registree-ep using the registration interface. This interface accepts a POST from an endpoint containing the list of resources to be added to the directory as the message payload in the CoRE Link Format , JSON CoRE Link Format (application/link-format+json), or CBOR CoRE Link Format (application/link-format+cbor) , along with query parameters indicating the name of the endpoint, and optionally the sector, lifetime and base URI of the registration. It is expected that other specifications will define further parameters (see ). The RD then creates a new registration resource in the RD and returns its location. The receiving endpoint MUST use that location when refreshing registrations using this interface. Registration resources in the RD are kept active for the period indicated by the lifetime parameter. The endpoint is responsible for refreshing the registration resource within this period using either the registration or update interface. The registration interface MUST be implemented to be idempotent, so that registering twice with the same endpoint parameters ep and d (sector) does not create multiple registration resources. The following rules apply for an update identified by a given (ep, d) value pair: when the parameter values of the Update generate the same attribute values as already present, the location of the already existing registration is returned. when for a given (ep, d) value pair the update generates attribute values which are different from the existing one, the existing registration is removed and a new registration with a new location is created. when the (ep, d) value pair of the update is different from any existing registration, a new registration is generated. The posted link-format document can (and typically does) contain relative references both in its link targets and in its anchors, or contain empty anchors. The RD server needs to resolve these references in order to faithfully represent them in lookups. They are resolved against the base URI of the registration, which is provided either explicitly in the base parameter or constructed implicitly from the requester’s network address. Link format documents submitted to the resource directory are interpreted as Modernized Link Format (see ) by the RD. A registree-ep SHOULD NOT submit documents whose interpretations according to and differ and RFC6690 interpretation is intended to avoid the ambiguities described in . In practice, most links (precisely listed in ) can be submitted without consideration for those details. The registration request interface is specified as follows: EP -> RD POST {+rd}{?ep,d,lt,base,extra-attrs*} RD registration URI (mandatory). This is the location of the RD, as obtained from discovery. Endpoint name (mostly mandatory). The endpoint name is an identifier that MUST be unique within a sector. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. If the RD is configured to recognize the endpoint (eg. based on its security context), the endpoint sets no endpoint name, and the RD assigns one based on a set of configuration parameter values. Sector (optional). The sector to which this endpoint belongs. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. When this parameter is not present, the RD MAY associate the endpoint with a configured default sector or leave it empty. The endpoint name and sector name are not set when one or both are set in an accompanying authorization token. Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included in the initial registration, a default value of 90000 (25 hours) SHOULD be assumed. Base URI (optional). This parameter sets the base URI of the registration, under which the request’s links are to be interpreted. The specified URI typically does not have a path component of its own, and MUST be suitable as a base URI to resolve any relative references given in the registration. The parameter is therefore usually of the shape “scheme://authority” for HTTP and CoAP URIs. The URI SHOULD NOT have a query or fragment component as any non-empty relative part in a reference would remove those parts from the resulting URI. In the absence of this parameter the scheme of the protocol, source address and source port of the registration request are assumed. This parameter is mandatory when the directory is filled by a third party such as an commissioning tool. If the endpoint uses an ephemeral port to register with, it MUST include the base parameter in the registration to provide a valid network path. If the endpoint which is located behind a NAT gateway is registering with a Resource Directory which is on the network service side of the NAT gateway, the endpoint MUST use a persistent port for the outgoing registration in order to provide the NAT gateway with a valid network address for replies and incoming requests. Endpoints that register with a base that contains a path component can not meaningfully use Link Format due to its prevalence of the Origin concept in relative reference resolution; they can submit payloads for interpretation as Modernized Link Format. Typically, links submitted by such an endpoint are of the path-noscheme (starts with a path not preceded by a slash, precisely defined in Section 3.3) form. Additional registration attributes (optional). The endpoint can pass any parameter registered at to the directory. If the RD is aware of the parameter’s specified semantics, it processes it accordingly. Otherwise, it MUST store the unknown key and its value(s) as an endpoint attribute for further lookup. application/link-format application/link-format+json application/link-format+cbor The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.01 “Created” or 201 “Created”. The Location-Path option or Location header MUST be included in the response. This location MUST be a stable identifier generated by the RD as it is used for all subsequent operations on this registration resource. The registration resource location thus returned is for the purpose of updating the lifetime of the registration and for maintaining the content of the registered links, including updating and deleting links. A registration with an already registered ep and d value pair responds with the same success code and location as the original registration; the set of links registered with the endpoint is replaced with the links from the payload. The location MUST NOT have a query or fragment component, as that could conflict with query parameters during the Registration Update operation. Therefore, the Location-Query option MUST NOT be present in a successful response. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. YES If the registration fails with a Service Unavailable response and a Max-Age option or Retry-After header, the registering endpoint SHOULD retry the operation after the time indicated. If the registration fails in another way, including request timeouts, or if the Service Unavailable error persists after several retries, or indicates a longer time than the endpoint is willing to wait, it SHOULD pick another registration URI from the “URI Discovery” step and if there is only one or the list is exhausted, pick other choices from the “Finding a Resource Directory” step. Care has to be taken to consider the freshness of results obtained earlier, eg. of the result of a /.well-known/core response, the lifetime of an RDAO option and of DNS responses. Any rate limits and persistent errors from the “Finding a Resource Directory” step must be considered for the whole registration time, not only for a single operation. The following example shows a registree-ep with the name “node1” registering two resources to an RD using this interface. The location “/rd” is an example RD location discovered in a request similar to .

;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor"; anchor="coap://spurious.example.com:5683", ;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor" Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd/4521 ]]>

A Resource Directory may optionally support HTTP. Here is an example of almost the same registration operation above, when done using HTTP and the JSON Link Format.

Not all endpoints hosting resources are expected to know how to upload links to an RD as described in . Instead, simple endpoints can implement the Simple Registration approach described in this section. An RD implementing this specification MUST implement Simple Registration. However, there may be security reasons why this form of directory discovery would be disabled. This approach requires that the registree-ep makes available the hosted resources that it wants to be discovered, as links on its /.well-known/core interface as specified in . The links in that document are subject to the same limitations as the payload of a registration (with respect to ). The registree-ep then finds one or more addresses of the directory server as described in . The registree-ep finally asks the selected directory server to probe it for resources and publish them as follows: The registree-ep sends (and regularly refreshes with) a POST request to the /.well-known/core URI of the directory server of choice. The body of the POST request is empty, and triggers the resource directory server to perform GET requests at the requesting registree-ep’s default discovery URI to obtain the link-format payload to register. The registree-ep includes the same registration parameters in the POST request as it would per . The registration base URI of the registration is taken from the requesting server’s URI. The Resource Directory MUST NOT query the registree-ep’s data before sending the response; this is to accommodate very limited endpoints. The success condition only indicates that the request was valid (ie. the passed parameters are valid per se), not that the link data could be obtained or parsed or was successfully registered into the RD. The simple registration request interface is specified as follows: EP -> RD POST /.well-known/core{?ep,d,lt,extra-attrs*} URI Template Variables are as they are for registration in . The base attribute is not accepted to keep the registration interface simple; that rules out registration over CoAP-over-TCP or HTTP that would need to specify one. The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.04 “Changed”. 4.00 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 5.03 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. NO For the second interaction triggered by the above, the registree-ep takes the role of server and the RD the role of client. (Note that this is exactly the Well-Known Interface of Section 4): RD -> EP GET /.well-known/core The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.05 “Content”. 4.00 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 4.04 “Not Found”. /.well-known/core does not exist or is empty. 5.03 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. NO The registration resources MUST be deleted after the expiration of their lifetime. Additional operations on the registration resource cannot be executed because no registration location is returned. The following example shows a registree-ep using Simple Registration, by simply sending an empty POST to a resource directory.

]]>

For some applications, even Simple Registration may be too taxing for some very constrained devices, in particular if the security requirements become too onerous. In a controlled environment (e.g. building control), the Resource Directory can be filled by a third party device, called a commissioning tool. The commissioning tool can fill the Resource Directory from a database or other means. For that purpose the scheme, IP address and port of the registered device is indicated in the “base” parameter of the registration described in . It should be noted that the value of the “base” parameter applies to all the links of the registration and has consequences for the anchor value of the individual links as exemplified in . An eventual (currently non-existing) “base” attribute of the link is not affected by the value of “base” parameter in the registration.

This section defines the REST API for the creation, management, and lookup of endpoints for group operations. Similar to endpoint registration entries in the RD, groups may be created or removed. However unlike an endpoint entry, a group entry consists of a list of endpoints and does not have a lifetime associated with it. In order to make use of multicast requests with CoAP, a group MAY have a multicast address associated with it.

In order to create a group, a commissioning tool (CT) used to configure groups, makes a request to the RD indicating the name of the group to create (or update), optionally the sector the group belongs to, and optionally the multicast address of the group. This specification does not require that the endpoints belong to the same sector as the group, but a Resource Directory implementation can impose requirements on the sectors of groups and endpoints depending on its configuration. The registration message is a list of links to registration resources of the endpoints that belong to that group. The CT can use any URI reference discovered using endpoint lookup from the same server or obtained by registering an endpoint using third party registration and enter it into a group. The use of other URIs is not specified in this document and can be defined in others. The commissioning tool SHOULD not send any target attributes with the links to the registration resources, and the resource directory SHOULD reject registrations that contain links with unprocessable attributes. Configuration of the endpoints themselves is out of scope of this specification. Such an interface for managing the group membership of an endpoint has been defined in . The registration request interface is specified as follows: CT -> RD POST {+rd-group}{?gp,d,base} RD Group URI (mandatory). This is the location of the RD Group REST API. Group Name (mandatory). The name of the group to be created or replaced, unique within that sector. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. Sector (optional). The sector to which this group belongs. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. When this parameter is not present, the RD MAY associate the group with a configured default sector or leave it empty. Group Base URI (optional). This parameter sets the scheme, address and port of the multicast address associated with the group. When base is used, scheme and host are mandatory and port parameter is optional. application/link-format application/link-format+json application/link-format+cbor The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.01 “Created” or 201 “Created”. The Location header or Location-Path option MUST be returned in response to a successful group CREATE operation. This location MUST be a stable identifier generated by the RD as it is used for delete operations of the group resource. As with the Registration operation, the location MUST NOT have a query or fragment component. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. YES The following example shows an EP registering a group with the name “lights” which has two endpoints. The RD group path /rd-group is an example RD location discovered in a request similar to .

, Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd-group/12 ]]>

A relative href value denotes the path to the registration resource of the Endpoint. When pointing to a registration resource on a different RD, the href value is an absolute URI.

A group can be removed simply by sending a removal message to the location of the group registration resource which was returned when initially registering the group. Removing a group MUST NOT remove the endpoints of the group from the RD. The removal request interface is specified as follows: CT -> RD DELETE {+location} This is the path of the group resource returned by the RD as a result of a successful group registration. The following responses codes are defined for this interface: 2.02 “Deleted” or 204 “No Content” upon successful deletion 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 4.04 “Not Found” or 404 “Not Found”. Group does not exist. 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. YES The following examples shows successful removal of the group from the RD with the example location value /rd-group/12.

To discover the resources registered with the RD, a lookup interface must be provided. This lookup interface is defined as a default, and it is assumed that RDs may also support lookups to return resource descriptions in alternative formats (e.g. Atom or HTML Link) or using more advanced interfaces (e.g. supporting context or semantic based lookup). RD Lookup allows lookups for groups, endpoints and resources using attributes defined in this document and for use with the CoRE Link Format. The result of a lookup request is the list of links (if any) corresponding to the type of lookup. Thus, a group lookup MUST return a list of groups, an endpoint lookup MUST return a list of endpoints and a resource lookup MUST return a list of links to resources. The lookup type is selected by a URI endpoint, which is indicated by a Resource Type as per below: Lookup Type Resource Type Mandatory Resource core.rd-lookup-res Mandatory Endpoint core.rd-lookup-ep Mandatory Group core.rd-lookup-gp Optional

Resource lookup results in links that are semantically equivalent to the links submitted to the RD if they were accessed on the endpoint itself. The links and link parameters returned are equal to the submitted, except that the target and anchor references are fully resolved. Links that did not have an anchor attribute are therefore returned with the (explicitly or implicitly set) base URI of the registration as the anchor. Links whose href or anchor was submitted as an absolute URI are returned with respective attributes unmodified. Above rules allow the client to interpret the response as links without any further knowledge of what the RD does. The Resource Directory MAY replace the registration base URIs with a configured intermediate proxy, e.g. in the case of an HTTP lookup interface for CoAP endpoints.

Using the Accept Option, the requester can control whether the returned list is returned in CoRE Link Format (application/link-format, default) or its alternate content-formats (application/link-format+json or application/link-format+cbor). The page and count parameters are used to obtain lookup results in specified increments using pagination, where count specifies how many links to return and page specifies which subset of links organized in sequential pages, each containing ‘count’ links, starting with link zero and page zero. Thus, specifying count of 10 and page of 0 will return the first 10 links in the result set (links 0-9). Count = 10 and page = 1 will return the next ‘page’ containing links 10-19, and so on. Multiple search criteria MAY be included in a lookup. All included criteria MUST match for a link to be returned. The Resource Directory MUST support matching with multiple search criteria. A link matches a search criterion if it has an attribute of the same name and the same value, allowing for a trailing “*” wildcard operator as in Section 4.1 of . Attributes that are defined as “link-type” match if the search value matches any of their values (see Section 4.1 of ; eg. ?if=core.s matches ;if="abc core.s";). A link also matches a search criterion if the link that would be produced for any of its containing entities would match the criterion, or an entity contained in it would: A search criterion matches an endpoint if it matches the endpoint itself, any of the groups it is contained in or any resource it contains. A search criterion matches a resource if it matches the resource itself, the resource’s endpoint, or any of the endpoint’s groups. Note that href is also a valid search criterion and matches target references. Like all search criteria, on a resource lookup it can match the target reference of the resource link itself, but also the registration resource of the endpoint that registered it, or any group resource that endpoint is contained in. Queries for resource link targets MUST be in absolute form and are matched against a resolved link target. Queries for groups and endpoints SHOULD be expressed in path-absolute form if possible and MUST be expressed in absolute form otherwise; the RD SHOULD recognize either. Clients that are interested in a lookup result repeatedly or continuously can use mechanisms like ETag caching, resource observation (), or any future mechanism that might allow more efficient observations of collections. These are advertised, detected and used according to their own specifications and can be used with the lookup interface as with any other resource. When resource observation is used, every time the set of matching links changes, or the content of a matching link changes, the RD sends a notification with the matching link set. The notification contains the successful current response to the given request, especially with respect to representing zero matching links (see “Success” item below). The lookup interface is specified as follows: Client -> RD GET {+type-lookup-location}{?page,count,search*} RD Lookup URI for a given lookup type (mandatory). The address is discovered as described in . Search criteria for limiting the number of results (optional). Page (optional). Parameter can not be used without the count parameter. Results are returned from result set in pages that contain ‘count’ links starting from index (page * count). Page numbering starts with zero. Count (optional). Number of results is limited to this parameter value. If the page parameter is also present, the response MUST only include ‘count’ links starting with the (page * count) link in the result set from the query. If the count parameter is not present, then the response MUST return all matching links in the result set. Link numbering starts with zero. application/link-format (optional) application/link-format+json (optional) application/link-format+cbor (optional) The following responses codes are defined for this interface: 2.05 “Content” or 200 “OK” with an application/link-format, application/link-format+cbor, or application/link-format+json payload containing matching entries for the lookup. The payload can contain zero links (which is an empty payload, 80 (hex) or [] in the respective content format), indicating that no entities matched the request. No error response to a multicast request. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. YES The group and endpoint lookup return registration resources which can only be manipulated by the registering endpoint. Examples of group and endpoint lookup belong to the management aspects of the RD and are shown in . The resource lookup examples are shown in this section.

The examples in this section assume the existence of CoAP hosts with a default CoAP port 61616. HTTP hosts are possible and do not change the nature of the examples. The following example shows a client performing a resource lookup with the example resource look-up locations discovered in :

;rt="temperature"; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616" ]]>

The same lookup using the CBOR Link Format media type:

A client that wants to be notified of new resources as they show up can use observation:

;rt="light"; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]", ;rt="light"; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]", ;rt="light"; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]" ]]>

The following example shows a client performing a paginated resource lookup

;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616" Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?page=1&count=5 Res: 2.05 Content ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616", ;rt=sensor;ct=60; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616" ]]>

The following example shows a client performing a lookup of all resources from endpoints of all endpoints of a given endpoint type. It assumes that two endpoints (with endpoint names sensor1 and sensor2) have previously registered with their respective addresses coap://sensor1.example.com and coap://sensor2.example.com, and posted the very payload of the 6th request of section 5 of . It demonstrates how absolute link targets stay unmodified, while relative ones are resolved:

;ct=40;title="Sensor Index"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com", ;rt="temperature-c"; if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com", ;rt="light-lux"; if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com", ;rel="describedby"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/temp", ;rel="alternate"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/temp", ;ct=40;title="Sensor Index"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com", ;rt="temperature-c"; if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com", ;rt="light-lux"; if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com", ;rel="describedby"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/temp", ;rel="alternate"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/temp" ]]>

The security considerations as described in Section 7 of and Section 6 of apply. The /.well-known/core resource may be protected e.g. using DTLS when hosted on a CoAP server as described in . DTLS or TLS based security SHOULD be used on all resource directory interfaces defined in this document.

An Endpoint is determined to be unique within (the sector of) an RD by the Endpoint identifier parameter included during Registration, and any associated TLS or DTLS security bindings. An Endpoint MUST NOT be identified by its protocol, port or IP address as these may change over the lifetime of an Endpoint. Every operation performed by an Endpoint or Client on a resource directory SHOULD be mutually authenticated using Pre-Shared Key, Raw Public Key or Certificate based security. Consider the following threat: two devices A and B are managed by a single server. Both devices have unique, per-device credentials for use with DTLS to make sure that only parties with authorization to access A or B can do so. Now, imagine that a malicious device A wants to sabotage the device B. It uses its credentials during the DTLS exchange. Then, it puts the endpoint name of device B. If the server does not check whether the identifier provided in the DTLS handshake matches the identifier used at the CoAP layer then it may be inclined to use the endpoint name for looking up what information to provision to the malicious device. specifies an example that removes this threat by using an Authorization Server for endpoints that have a certificate installed.

Access control SHOULD be performed separately for the RD registration, Lookup, and group API paths, as different endpoints may be authorized to register with an RD from those authorized to lookup endpoints from the RD. Such access control SHOULD be performed in as fine-grained a level as possible. For example access control for lookups could be performed either at the sector, endpoint or resource level.

Services that run over UDP unprotected are vulnerable to unknowingly become part of a DDoS attack as UDP does not require return routability check. Therefore, an attacker can easily spoof the source IP of the target entity and send requests to such a service which would then respond to the target entity. This can be used for large-scale DDoS attacks on the target. Especially, if the service returns a response that is order of magnitudes larger than the request, the situation becomes even worse as now the attack can be amplified. DNS servers have been widely used for DDoS amplification attacks. There is also a danger that NTP Servers could become implicated in denial-of-service (DoS) attacks since they run on unprotected UDP, there is no return routability check, and they can have a large amplification factor. The responses from the NTP server were found to be 19 times larger than the request. A Resource Directory (RD) which responds to wild-card lookups is potentially vulnerable if run with CoAP over UDP. Since there is no return routability check and the responses can be significantly larger than requests, RDs can unknowingly become part of a DDoS amplification attack.

When threats may occur as described in , an Authorization Server (AS) as specified in can be used to remove the threat. An authorized registry request to the Resource Directory (RD) is accompanied by an Access Token that validates the access of the client to the RD. In this example, the contents of the Access Token is specified by a CBOR Web Token (CWT) . Selecting one of the scenarios of , the registree-ep has a certificate that has been inserted at manufacturing time. The contents of the certificate will be used to generate the unique endpoint name. The certificate is uniquely identified by the leftmost CNcomponent of the subject name appended with the serial number. The unique certificate identifier is used as the unique endpoint name. The same unique identification is used for the registree-ep and the Commissioning Tool. The case of using RPK or PSK is outside the scope of this example. shows the example certificate used to specify the claim values in the CWT. Serial number 01:02:03:04:05:06:07:08, and CN field, Fairhair, in the subject field are concatenated to create a unique certificate identifier: Fairhair-01:02:03:04:05:06:07:08, which is used in and as “sub” claim and “epn” claim values respectively.

Three sections for as many authorized RD registration scenarios describe: (1) the registree-ep registers itself with the RD, (2) a 3rd party Commissioning Tool (CT) registers the registree-ep with the RD, and (3) A client updates multiple links in an RD.

The registree-ep sends a Request to the RD accompanied by a CBOR Web Token (CWT). To prevent ambiguities, the URI of the authorized request cannot contain the ep= or the d= parameters which are specified in the CWT. When these parameters are present in the URI, the request is rejected with CoAP response code 4.00 (bad request). The CWT of authorizes the registree-ep to register itself in the RD by specifying the certificate identifier of the registree-ep in the sub claim. The same value is assigned to the endpoint name of the registree-ep in the RD.

The CT sends a Request to the RD accompanied by a CBOR Web Token (CWT). To prevent ambiguities, the URI of an authorized request cannot contain the ep= or the d= parameters which are specified in the CWT. When these parameters are present in the URI, the request is rejected with CoAP response code 4.00 (bad request). The CWT of authorizes the CT to register the registree-ep by specifying the certificate identifier, Fairhair_08:07:06:05:04:03:02:01, of the CT in the “sub” claim. Next to the certificate identifier of the CT, the CWT needs to specify the security identifier of the registree-ep. The new “rd_epn” claim is used to specify the value of the certificate identifier Fairhair_01:02:03:04:05:06:07:08, of the registree-ep. The CWT may contain the optional new “rd_sct” claim to assign a sector name to the registree-ep.

of RD specifies that multiple links can be updated with a media format to be specified. The updating endpoint sends a Request to the RD accompanied by a CWT. The “sub” claim of the CWT contains the certificate identifier of the updating endpoint. Updating registrations and links cannot not change or delete the endpoint names. Consequently, the updating endpoint is authorized by the CWT to change all links of its registrations but cannot delete or add registrations. The CWT of and authorize an updating registree-ep or an updating CT respectively.

IANA is asked to enter the following values into the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values subregistry of the Constrained Restful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry defined in : Value Description Reference core.rd Directory resource of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-group Group directory resource of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-lookup-res Resource lookup of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-lookup-ep Endpoint lookup of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-lookup-gp Group lookup of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-ep Endpoint resource of an RD RFCTHIS core.rd-gp Group resource of an RD RFCTHIS

This document registers one new ND option type under the subregistry “IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats”: Resource Directory address Option (38)

This specification defines a new sub-registry for registration and lookup parameters called “RD Parameters” under “CoRE Parameters”. Although this specification defines a basic set of parameters, it is expected that other standards that make use of this interface will define new ones. Each entry in the registry must include the human readable name of the parameter, the short name as used in query parameters or link attributes, indication of whether it can be passed as a query parameter at registration of endpoints or groups, as a query parameter in lookups, or be expressed as a link attribute, validity requirements if any, and a description. The query parameter MUST be both a valid URI query key and a parmname as used in . The description must give details on which registrations they apply to (Endpoint, group registrations or both? Can they be updated?), and how they are to be processed in lookups. The mechanisms around new RD parameters should be designed in such a way that they tolerate RD implementations that are unaware of the parameter and expose any parameter passed at registration or updates on in endpoint lookups. (For example, if a parameter used at registration were to be confidential, the registering endpoint should be instructed to only set that parameter if the RD advertises support for keeping it confidential at the discovery step.) Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows: Full name Short Validity Use Description Endpoint Name ep   RLA Name of the endpoint, max 63 bytes Lifetime lt 60-4294967295 R Lifetime of the registration in seconds Sector d   RLA Sector to which this endpoint belongs Registration Base URI base URI RLA The scheme, address and port and path at which this server is available Group Name gp   RLA Name of a group in the RD Page page Integer L Used for pagination Count count Integer L Used for pagination Endpoint Type et   RLA Semantic name of the endpoint (see ) (Short: Short name used in query parameters or link attributes. Use: R = used at registration, L = used at lookup, A = expressed in link attribute The descriptions for the options defined in this document are only summarized here. To which registrations they apply and when they are to be shown is described in the respective sections of this document. The IANA policy for future additions to the sub-registry is “Expert Review” as described in . The evaluation should consider formal criteria, duplication of functionality (Is the new entry redundant with an existing one?), topical suitability (Eg. is the described property actually a property of the endpoint and not a property of a particular resource, in which case it should go into the payload of the registration and need not be registered?), and the potential for conflict with commonly used link attributes (For example, if could be used as a parameter for conditional registration if it were not to be used in lookup or attributes, but would make a bad parameter for lookup, because a resource lookup with an if query parameter could ambiguously filter by the registered endpoint property or the link attribute). It is expected that the registry will receive between 5 and 50 registrations in total over the next years.

An endpoint registering at an RD can describe itself with endpoint types, similar to how resources are described with Resource Types in . An endpoint type is expressed as a string, which can be either a URI or one of the values defined in the Endpoint Type subregistry. Endpoint types can be passed in the et query parameter as part of extra-attrs at the Registration step, are shown on endpoint lookups using the et target attribute, and can be filtered for using et as a search criterion in resource and endpoint lookup. Multiple endpoint types are given as separate query parameters or link attributes. Note that Endpoint Type differs from Resource Type in that it uses multiple attributes rather than space separated values. As a result, Resource Directory implementations automatically support correct filtering in the lookup interfaces from the rules for unknown endpoint attributes.

This specification establishes a new sub-registry under “CoRE Parameters” called ‘“Endpoint Type” (et=) RD Parameter values’. The registry properties (required policy, requirements, template) are identical to those of the Resource Type parameters in , in short: The review policy is IETF Review for values starting with “core”, and Specification Required for others. The requirements to be enforced are: The values MUST be related to the purpose described in . The registered values MUST conform to the ABNF reg-rel-type definition of and MUST NOT be a URI. It is recommended to use the period “.” character for segmentation. The registry is initially empty.

IANA has assigned the following multicast addresses for use by CoAP nodes: IPv4 – “all CoRE resource directories” address, from the “IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry” equal to “All CoAP Nodes”, 224.0.1.187. As the address is used for discovery that may span beyond a single network, it has come from the Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1.x, RFC 5771). IPv6 – “all CoRE resource directories” address MCD1 (suggestions FF0X::FE), from the “IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry”, in the “Variable Scope Multicast Addresses” space (RFC 3307). Note that there is a distinct multicast address for each scope that interested CoAP nodes should listen to; CoAP needs the Link-Local and Site-Local scopes only.

This specification registers the following new claims in the CBOR Web Token (CWT) registry of CBOR Web Token Claims: Claim “rd_epn” Claim Name: “rd_epn” Claim Description: The endpoint name of the RD entry as described in of RFCTHIS. JWT Claim Name: N/A Claim Key: y Claim Value Type(s): 0 (uint), 2 (byte string), 3 (text string) Change Controller: IESG Specification Document(s): of RFCTHIS Claim “rd_sct” Claim Name: “rd_sct” Claim Description: The sector name of the RD entry as described in of RFCTHIS. JWT Claim Name: N/A Claim Key: z Claim Value Type(s): 0 (uint), 2 (byte string), 3 (text string) Change Controller: IESG Specification Document(s): of RFCTHIS Mapping of claim name to CWT key Parameter name CBOR key Value type rd_epn y Text string rd_sct z Text string

Two examples are presented: a Lighting Installation example in and a LWM2M example in .

This example shows a simplified lighting installation which makes use of the Resource Directory (RD) with a CoAP interface to facilitate the installation and start up of the application code in the lights and sensors. In particular, the example leads to the definition of a group and the enabling of the corresponding multicast address. No conclusions must be drawn on the realization of actual installation or naming procedures, because the example only “emphasizes” some of the issues that may influence the use of the RD and does not pretend to be normative.

The example assumes that the installation is managed. That means that a Commissioning Tool (CT) is used to authorize the addition of nodes, name them, and name their services. The CT can be connected to the installation in many ways: the CT can be part of the installation network, connected by WiFi to the installation network, or connected via GPRS link, or other method. It is assumed that there are two naming authorities for the installation: (1) the network manager that is responsible for the correct operation of the network and the connected interfaces, and (2) the lighting manager that is responsible for the correct functioning of networked lights and sensors. The result is the existence of two naming schemes coming from the two managing entities. The example installation consists of one presence sensor, and two luminaries, luminary1 and luminary2, each with their own wireless interface. Each luminary contains three lamps: left, right and middle. Each luminary is accessible through one endpoint. For each lamp a resource exists to modify the settings of a lamp in a luminary. The purpose of the installation is that the presence sensor notifies the presence of persons to a group of lamps. The group of lamps consists of: middle and left lamps of luminary1 and right lamp of luminary2. Before commissioning by the lighting manager, the network is installed and access to the interfaces is proven to work by the network manager. At the moment of installation, the network under installation is not necessarily connected to the DNS infra structure. Therefore, SLAAC IPv6 addresses are assigned to CT, RD, luminaries and sensor shown in below: Name IPv6 address luminary1 2001:db8:4::1 luminary2 2001:db8:4::2 Presence sensor 2001:db8:4::3 Resource directory 2001:db8:4::ff In the use of resource directory during installation is presented.

It is assumed that access to the DNS infrastructure is not always possible during installation. Therefore, the SLAAC addresses are used in this section. For discovery, the resource types (rt) of the devices are important. The lamps in the luminaries have rt: light, and the presence sensor has rt: p-sensor. The endpoints have names which are relevant to the light installation manager. In this case luminary1, luminary2, and the presence sensor are located in room 2-4-015, where luminary1 is located at the window and luminary2 and the presence sensor are located at the door. The endpoint names reflect this physical location. The middle, left and right lamps are accessed via path /light/middle, /light/left, and /light/right respectively. The identifiers relevant to the Resource Directory are shown in below: Name endpoint resource path resource type luminary1 lm_R2-4-015_wndw /light/left light luminary1 lm_R2-4-015_wndw /light/middle light luminary1 lm_R2-4-015_wndw /light/right light luminary2 lm_R2-4-015_door /light/left light luminary2 lm_R2-4-015_door /light/middle light luminary2 lm_R2-4-015_door /light/right light Presence sensor ps_R2-4-015_door /ps p-sensor It is assumed that the CT knows the RD’s address, and has performed URI discovery on it that returned a response like the one in the example. The CT inserts the endpoints of the luminaries and the sensor in the RD using the registration base URI parameter (base) to specify the interface address:

;rt="light", ;rt="light", ;rt="light" Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd/4521 ]]>

;rt="light", ;rt="light", ;rt="light" Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd/4522 ]]>

;rt="p-sensor" Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd/4523 ]]>

The sector name d=R2-4-015 has been added for an efficient lookup because filtering on “ep” name is more awkward. The same sector name is communicated to the two luminaries and the presence sensor by the CT. The group is specified in the RD. The base parameter is set to the site-local multicast address allocated to the group. In the POST in the example below, these two endpoints and the endpoint of the presence sensor are registered as members of the group.

, , Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd-group/501 ]]>

After the filling of the RD by the CT, the application in the luminaries can learn to which groups they belong, and enable their interface for the multicast address. The luminary, knowing its sector and own IPv6 address, looks up the groups containing light resources it is assigned to:

;gp="grp_R2-4-015";base="coap://[ff05::1]" ]]>

From the returned base parameter value, the luminary learns the multicast address of the multicast group. Alternatively, the CT can communicate the multicast address directly to the luminaries by using the “coap-group” resource specified in .

Dependent on the situation, only the address, “a”, or the name, “n”, is specified in the coap-group resource.

This example shows how the OMA LWM2M specification makes use of Resource Directory (RD). OMA LWM2M is a profile for device services based on CoAP(OMA Name Authority). LWM2M defines a simple object model and a number of abstract interfaces and operations for device management and device service enablement. An LWM2M server is an instance of an LWM2M middleware service layer, containing a Resource Directory along with other LWM2M interfaces defined by the LWM2M specification. CoRE Resource Directory (RD) is used to provide the LWM2M Registration interface. LWM2M does not provide for registration sectors and does not currently use the rd-group or rd-lookup interfaces. The LWM2M specification describes a set of interfaces and a resource model used between a LWM2M device and an LWM2M server. Other interfaces, proxies, and applications are currently out of scope for LWM2M. The location of the LWM2M Server and RD URI path is provided by the LWM2M Bootstrap process, so no dynamic discovery of the RD is used. LWM2M Servers and endpoints are not required to implement the /.well-known/core resource.

The OMA LWM2M object model is based on a simple 2 level class hierarchy consisting of Objects and Resources. An LWM2M Resource is a REST endpoint, allowed to be a single value or an array of values of the same data type. An LWM2M Object is a resource template and container type that encapsulates a set of related resources. An LWM2M Object represents a specific type of information source; for example, there is a LWM2M Device Management object that represents a network connection, containing resources that represent individual properties like radio signal strength. Since there may potentially be more than one of a given type object, for example more than one network connection, LWM2M defines instances of objects that contain the resources that represent a specific physical thing. The URI template for LWM2M consists of a base URI followed by Object, Instance, and Resource IDs: {/base-uri}{/object-id}{/object-instance}{/resource-id}{/resource-instance} The five variables given here are strings. base-uri can also have the special value “undefined” (sometimes called “null” in RFC 6570). Each of the variables object-instance, resource-id, and resource-instance can be the special value “undefined” only if the values behind it in this sequence also are “undefined”. As a special case, object-instance can be “empty” (which is different from “undefined”) if resource-id is not “undefined”. base-uri := Base URI for LWM2M resources or “undefined” for default (empty) base URI object-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered object ID (0-65535) object-instance := Object instance identifier (0-65535) or “undefined”/”empty” (see above)) to refer to all instances of an object ID resource-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered resource ID (0-65535) or “undefined” to refer to all resources within an instance resource-instance := Resource instance identifier or “undefined” to refer to single instance of a resource LWM2M IDs are 16 bit unsigned integers represented in decimal (no leading zeroes except for the value 0) by URI format strings. For example, a LWM2M URI might be:

The base uri is empty, the Object ID is 1, the instance ID is 0, the resource ID is 1, and the resource instance is “undefined”. This example URI points to internal resource 1, which represents the registration lifetime configured, in instance 0 of a type 1 object (LWM2M Server Object).

LWM2M defines a registration interface based on the REST API, described in . The RD registration URI path of the LWM2M Resource Directory is specified to be “/rd”. LWM2M endpoints register object IDs, for example </1>, to indicate that a particular object type is supported, and register object instances, for example </1/0>, to indicate that a particular instance of that object type exists. Resources within the LWM2M object instance are not registered with the RD, but may be discovered by reading the resource links from the object instance using GET with a CoAP Content-Format of application/link-format. Resources may also be read as a structured object by performing a GET to the object instance with a Content-Format of senml+json. When an LWM2M object or instance is registered, this indicates to the LWM2M server that the object and its resources are available for management and service enablement (REST API) operations. LWM2M endpoints may use the following RD registration parameters as defined in :

Endpoint Name, Lifetime, and LWM2M Version are mandatory parameters for the register operation, all other registration parameters are optional. Additional optional LWM2M registration parameters are defined: Name Query Validity Description Binding Mode b {“U”,UQ”,”S”,”SQ”,”US”,”UQS”} Available Protocols         LWM2M Version ver 1.0 Spec Version         SMS Number sms   MSISDN The following RD registration parameters are not currently specified for use in LWM2M:

The endpoint registration must include a payload containing links to all supported objects and existing object instances, optionally including the appropriate link-format relations. Here is an example LWM2M registration payload:

,,, ]]>

This link format payload indicates that object ID 1 (LWM2M Server Object) is supported, with a single instance 0 existing, object ID 3 (LWM2M Device object) is supported, with a single instance 0 existing, and object 5 (LWM2M Firmware Object) is supported, with no existing instances.

The LwM2M update is really very similar to the registration update as described in , with the only difference that there are more parameters defined and available. All the parameters listed in that section are also available with the initial registration but are all optional:

A Registration update is also specified to be used to update the LWM2M server whenever the endpoint’s UDP port or IP address are changed.

LWM2M allows for de-registration using the delete method on the returned location from the initial registration operation. LWM2M de-registration proceeds as described in .

Oscar Novo, Srdjan Krco, Szymon Sasin, Kerry Lynn, Esko Dijk, Anders Brandt, Matthieu Vial, Jim Schaad, Mohit Sethi, Hauke Petersen, Hannes Tschofenig, Sampo Ukkola, Linyi Tian, and Jan Newmarch have provided helpful comments, discussions and ideas to improve and shape this document. Zach would also like to thank his colleagues from the EU FP7 SENSEI project, where many of the resource directory concepts were originally developed.

changes from -13 to -14 Rename “registration context” to “registration base URI” (and “con” to “base”) and “domain” to “sector” (where the abbreviation “d” stays for compatibility reasons) Introduced resource types core.rd-ep and core.rd-gp Registration management moved to appendix A, including endpoint and group lookup Minor editorial changes PATCH/iPATCH is clearly deferred to another document Recommend against query / fragment identifier in con= Interface description lists are described as illustrative Rewording of Simple Registration Simple registration carries no error information and succeeds immediately (previously, sequence was unspecified) Lookup: href are matched against resolved values (previously, this was unspecified) Lookup: lt are not exposed any more con/base: Paths are allowed Registration resource locations can not have query or fragment parts Default life time extended to 25 hours clarified registration update rules lt-value semantics for lookup clarified. added template for simple registration changes from -12 to -13 Added “all resource directory” nodes MC address Clarified observation behavior version identification example rt= and et= values domain from figure 2 more explanatory text endpoints of a groups hosted by different RD resolve RFC6690-vs-8288 resolution ambiguities: require registered links not to be relative when using anchor return absolute URIs in resource lookup changes from -11 to -12 added Content Model section, including ER diagram removed domain lookup interface; domains are now plain attributes of groups and endpoints updated chapter “Finding a Resource Directory”; now distinguishes configuration-provided, network-provided and heuristic sources improved text on: atomicity, idempotency, lookup with multiple parameters, endpoint removal, simple registration updated LWM2M description clarified where relative references are resolved, and how context and anchor interact new appendix on the interaction with RFCs 6690, 5988 and 3986 lookup interface: group and endpoint lookup return group and registration resources as link targets lookup interface: search parameters work the same across all entities removed all methods that modify links in an existing registration (POST with payload, PATCH and iPATCH) removed plurality definition (was only needed for link modification) enhanced IANA registry text state that lookup resources can be observable More examples and improved text changes from -09 to -10 removed “ins” and “exp” link-format extensions. removed all text concerning DNS-SD. removed inconsistency in RDAO text. suggestions taken over from various sources replaced “Function Set” with “REST API”, “base URI”, “base path” moved simple registration to registration section changes from -08 to -09 clarified the “example use” of the base RD resource values /rd, /rd-lookup, and /rd-group. changed “ins” ABNF notation. various editorial improvements, including in examples clarifications for RDAO changes from -07 to -08 removed link target value returned from domain and group lookup types Maximum length of domain parameter 63 bytes for consistency with group removed option for simple POST of link data, don’t require a .well-known/core resource to accept POST data and handle it in a special way; we already have /rd for that add IPv6 ND Option for discovery of an RD clarify group configuration section 6.1 that endpoints must be registered before including them in a group removed all superfluous client-server diagrams simplified lighting example introduced Commissioning Tool RD-Look-up text is extended. changes from -06 to -07 added text in the discovery section to allow content format hints to be exposed in the discovery link attributes editorial updates to section 9 update author information minor text corrections Changes from -05 to -06 added note that the PATCH section is contingent on the progress of the PATCH method changes from -04 to -05 added Update Endpoint Links using PATCH http access made explicit in interface specification Added http examples Changes from -03 to -04: Added http response codes Clarified endpoint name usage Add application/link-format+cbor content-format Changes from -02 to -03: Added an example for lighting and DNS integration Added an example for RD use in OMA LWM2M Added Read Links operation for link inspection by endpoints Expanded DNS-SD section Added draft authors Peter van der Stok and Michael Koster Changes from -01 to -02: Added a catalogue use case. Changed the registration update to a POST with optional link format payload. Removed the endpoint type update from the update. Additional examples section added for more complex use cases. New DNS-SD mapping section. Added text on endpoint identification and authentication. Error code 4.04 added to Registration Update and Delete requests. Made 63 bytes a SHOULD rather than a MUST for endpoint name and resource type parameters. Changes from -00 to -01: Removed the ETag validation feature. Place holder for the DNS-SD mapping section. Explicitly disabled GET or POST on returned Location. New registry for RD parameters. Added support for the JSON Link Format. Added reference to the Groupcomm WG draft. Changes from -05 to WG Document -00: Updated the version and date. Changes from -04 to -05: Restricted Update to parameter updates. Added pagination support for the Lookup interface. Minor editing, bug fixes and reference updates. Added group support. Changed rt to et for the registration and update interface. Changes from -03 to -04: Added the ins= parameter back for the DNS-SD mapping. Integrated the Simple Directory Discovery from Carsten. Editorial improvements. Fixed the use of ETags. Fixed tickets 383 and 372 Changes from -02 to -03: Changed the endpoint name back to a single registration parameter ep= and removed the h= and ins= parameters. Updated REST interface descriptions to use RFC6570 URI Template format. Introduced an improved RD Lookup design as its own function set. Improved the security considerations section. Made the POST registration interface idempotent by requiring the ep= parameter to be present. Changes from -01 to -02: Added a terminology section. Changed the inclusion of an ETag in registration or update to a MAY. Added the concept of an RD Domain and a registration parameter for it. Recommended the Location returned from a registration to be stable, allowing for endpoint and Domain information to be changed during updates. Changed the lookup interface to accept endpoint and Domain as query string parameters to control the scope of a lookup.

This specification defines Web Linking using a link format for use by constrained web servers to describe hosted resources, their attributes, and other relationships between links. Based on the HTTP Link Header field defined in RFC 5988, the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format is carried as a payload and is assigned an Internet media type. "RESTful" refers to the Representational State Transfer (REST) architecture. A well-known URI is defined as a default entry point for requesting the links hosted by a server. [STANDARDS-TRACK] In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226. This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a registry for them. It also defines the use of such links in HTTP headers with the Link header field. [STANDARDS-TRACK] A URI Template is a compact sequence of characters for describing a range of Uniform Resource Identifiers through variable expansion. This specification defines the URI Template syntax and the process for expanding a URI Template into a URI reference, along with guidelines for the use of URI Templates on the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies how DNS resource records are named and structured to facilitate service discovery. Given a type of service that a client is looking for, and a domain in which the client is looking for that service, this mechanism allows clients to discover a list of named instances of that desired service, using standard DNS queries. This mechanism is referred to as DNS-based Service Discovery, or DNS-SD. JavaScript Object Notation, JSON (RFC 8259) is a text-based data format which is popular for Web based data exchange. Concise Binary Object Representation, CBOR (RFC7049) is a binary data format which has been optimized for data exchange for the Internet of Things (IoT). For many IoT scenarios, CBOR formats will be preferred since it can help decrease transmission payload sizes as well as implementation code sizes compared to other data formats. Web Linking (RFC 8288) provides a way to represent links between Web resources as well as the relations expressed by them and attributes of such a link. In constrained networks, a collection of Web links can be exchanged in the CoRE link format (RFC 6690). Outside of constrained environments, it may be useful to represent these collections of Web links in JSON, and similarly, inside constrained environments, in CBOR. This specification defines a common format for this. 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 IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) 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 is designed to easily interface with HTTP for integration with the Web while meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity for constrained environments. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized web transfer protocol for constrained devices and constrained networks. It is anticipated that constrained devices will often naturally operate in groups (e.g., in a building automation scenario, all lights in a given room may need to be switched on/off as a group). This specification defines how CoAP should be used in a group communication context. An approach for using CoAP on top of IP multicast is detailed based on existing CoAP functionality as well as new features introduced in this specification. Also, various use cases and corresponding protocol flows are provided to illustrate important concepts. Finally, guidance is provided for deployment in various network topologies. The IETF work in IPv6 over Low-power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) defines 6LoWPANs such as IEEE 802.15.4. This and other similar link technologies have limited or no usage of multicast signaling due to energy conservation. In addition, the wireless network may not strictly follow the traditional concept of IP subnets and IP links. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery was not designed for non- transitive wireless links, as its reliance on the traditional IPv6 link concept and its heavy use of multicast make it inefficient and sometimes impractical in a low-power and lossy network. This document describes simple optimizations to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, its addressing mechanisms, and duplicate address detection for Low- power Wireless Personal Area Networks and similar networks. The document thus updates RFC 4944 to specify the use of the optimizations defined here. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document provides an overview of HTTP architecture and its associated terminology, defines the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, defines the HTTP/1.1 message syntax and parsing requirements, and describes related security concerns for implementations. The methods defined in RFC 7252 for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) only allow access to a complete resource, not to parts of a resource. In case of resources with larger or complex data, or in situations where resource continuity is required, replacing or requesting the whole resource is undesirable. Several applications using CoAP need to access parts of the resources.This specification defines the new CoAP methods, FETCH, PATCH, and iPATCH, which are used to access and update parts of a resource. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a RESTful application protocol for constrained nodes and networks. The state of a resource on a CoAP server can change over time. This document specifies a simple protocol extension for CoAP that enables CoAP clients to "observe" resources, i.e., to retrieve a representation of a resource and keep this representation updated by the server over a period of time. The protocol follows a best-effort approach for sending new representations to clients and provides eventual consistency between the state observed by each client and the actual resource state at the server. This specification defines a model for the relationships between resources on the Web ("links") and the type of those relationships ("link relation types").It also defines the serialisation of such links in HTTP headers with the Link header field. CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application-layer security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON. CoAP has been standardised as an application-level REST-based protocol. When multiple transport protocols exist for exchanging CoAP resource representations, this document introduces a way forward for CoAP endpoints as well as intermediaries to agree upon alternate transport and protocol configurations as well as URIs for CoAP messaging. Several mechanisms are proposed: Extending the CoRE Resource Directory with new parameter types, introducing a new CoAP Option with which clients can interact directly with servers without needing the Resource Directory, and finally a new CoRE Link Attribute allowing exposing alternate locations on a per-resource basis. This memo describes a new Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace for hardware device identifiers. A general representation of device identity can be useful in many applications, such as in sensor data streams and storage, or equipment inventories. A URN-based representation can be easily passed along in any application that needs the information. This specification defines a framework for authentication and authorization in Internet of Things (IoT) environments called ACE- OAuth. The framework is based on a set of building blocks including OAuth 2.0 and CoAP, thus making a well-known and widely used authorization solution suitable for IoT devices. Existing specifications are used where possible, but where the constraints of IoT devices require it, extensions are added and profiles are defined. This document specifies automated bootstrapping of a remote secure key infrastructure (BRSKI) using manufacturer installed X.509 certificate, in combination with a manufacturer's authorizing service, both online and offline. Bootstrapping a new device can occur using a routable address and a cloud service, or using only link-local connectivity, or on limited/disconnected networks. Support for lower security models, including devices with minimal identity, is described for legacy reasons but not encouraged. Bootstrapping is complete when the cryptographic identity of the new key infrastructure is successfully deployed to the device but the established secure connection can be used to deploy a locally issued certificate to the device as well. HTTP has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This specification defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1", and is an update to RFC 2068. [STANDARDS-TRACK] When debugging an interoperability problem, it is often helpful to have information about the implementation version of a peer. To enable the disclosure of such information, HTTP defines header fields such as Server and User-Agent. In CoAP, it is rarely appropriate to send information of this kind in every request or response. Instead, the present specification defines a link relation type, impl-info, that can be used to convey this information via the self-description capabilities of the /.well- known/core resource and the CoRE resource directory.

This section describes how the registering endpoint can maintain the registries that it created. The registering endpoint can be the registree-ep or the CT. An endpoint SHOULD NOT use this interface for registries that it did not create. The registries are resources of the RD. After the initial registration, the registering endpoint retains the returned location of the Registration Resource for further operations, including refreshing the registration in order to extend the lifetime and “keep-alive” the registration. When the lifetime of the registration has expired, the RD SHOULD NOT respond to discovery queries concerning this endpoint. The RD SHOULD continue to provide access to the Registration Resource after a registration time-out occurs in order to enable the registering endpoint to eventually refresh the registration. The RD MAY eventually remove the registration resource for the purpose of garbage collection and remove it from any group it belongs to. If the Registration Resource is removed, the corresponding endpoint will need to be re-registered. The Registration Resource may also be used to inspect the registration resource using GET, update the registration, cancel the registration using DELETE, do an endpoint lookup, or a group lookup. These operations are described below.

The update interface is used by the registering endpoint to refresh or update its registration with an RD. To use the interface, the registering endpoint sends a POST request to the registration resource returned by the initial registration operation. An update MAY update the lifetime- or the context- registration parameters “lt”, “base” as in . Parameters that are not being changed SHOULD NOT be included in an update. Adding parameters that have not changed increases the size of the message but does not have any other implications. Parameters MUST be included as query parameters in an update operation as in . A registration update resets the timeout of the registration to the (possibly updated) lifetime of the registration, independent of whether a lt parameter was given. If the context of the registration is changed in an update explicitly or implicitly, relative references submitted in the original registration or later updates are resolved anew against the new context (like in the original registration). The registration update operation only describes the use of POST with an empty payload. Future standards might describe the semantics of using content formats and payloads with the POST method to update the links of a registration (see ). The update registration request interface is specified as follows: EP -> RD POST {+location}{?lt,con,extra-attrs*} This is the Location returned by the RD as a result of a successful earlier registration. Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included, the previous last lifetime set on a previous update or the original registration (falling back to 90000) SHOULD be used. Base URI (optional). This parameter updates the context established in the original registration to a new value. If the parameter is set in an update, it is stored by the RD as the new Base URI under which to interpret the links of the registration, following the same restrictions as in the registration. If the parameter is not set and was set explicitly before, the previous Base URI value is kept unmodified. If the parameter is not set and was not set explicitly before either, the source address and source port of the update request are stored as the Base URI. Additional registration attributes (optional). As with the registration, the RD processes them if it knows their semantics. Otherwise, unknown attributes are stored as endpoint attributes, overriding any previously stored endpoint attributes of the same key. none (no payload) The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.04 “Changed” or 204 “No Content” if the update was successfully processed. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 4.04 “Not Found” or 404 “Not Found”. Registration does not exist (e.g. may have expired). 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. YES If the registration update fails with a “Service Unavailable” response and a Max-Age option or Retry-After header, the registering endpoint SHOULD retry the operation after the time indicated. If the registration fails in another way, including request timeouts, or if the time indicated excedes the remaining lifetime, the registering endpoint SHOULD attempt registration again. The following example shows the registering endpoint updates its registration resource at an RD using this interface with the example location value: /rd/4521.

The following example shows the registering endpoint updating its registration resource at an RD using this interface with the example location value: /rd/4521. The initial registration by the registering endpoint set the following values: endpoint name (ep)=endpoint1 lifetime (lt)=500 context (con)=coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683 payload of The initial state of the Resource Directory is reflected in the following request:

;ct=41; rt="temperature"; anchor="coap://spurious.example.com:5683", ;ct=41; rt="light-lux"; if="sensor"; anchor="coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683" ]]>

The following example shows the registering endpoint changing the context to coaps://new.example.com:5684:

The consecutive query returns:

;ct=41;rt="temperature"; anchor="coap://spurious.example.com:5683", ;ct=41;rt="light-lux"; if="sensor"; anchor="coaps://new.example.com:5684", ]]>

Although RD entries have soft state and will eventually timeout after their lifetime, the registering endpoint SHOULD explicitly remove an entry from the RD if it knows it will no longer be available (for example on shut-down). This is accomplished using a removal interface on the RD by performing a DELETE on the endpoint resource. Removed registrations are implicitly removed from the groups to which they belong. The removal request interface is specified as follows: EP -> RD DELETE {+location} This is the Location returned by the RD as a result of a successful earlier registration. The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.02 “Deleted” or 204 “No Content” upon successful deletion 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 4.04 “Not Found” or 404 “Not Found”. Registration does not exist (e.g. may have expired). 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. HTTP support: YES The following examples shows successful removal of the endpoint from the RD with example location value /rd/4521.

Some registering endpoints may wish to manage their links as a collection, and may need to read the current set of links stored in the registration resource, in order to determine link maintenance operations. One or more links MAY be selected by using query filtering as specified in Section 4.1 If no links are selected, the Resource Directory SHOULD return an empty payload. The read request interface is specified as follows: EP -> RD GET {+location}{?href,rel,rt,if,ct} This is the Location returned by the RD as a result of a successful earlier registration. href,rel,rt,if,ct := link relations and attributes specified in the query in order to select particular links based on their relations and attributes. “href” denotes the URI target of the link. See Sec. 4.1 The following response codes are defined for this interface: 2.05 “Content” or 200 “OK” upon success with an application/link-format, application/link-format+cbor, or application/link-format+json payload. 4.00 “Bad Request” or 400 “Bad Request”. Malformed request. 4.04 “Not Found” or 404 “Not Found”. Registration does not exist (e.g. may have expired). 5.03 “Service Unavailable” or 503 “Service Unavailable”. Service could not perform the operation. HTTP support: YES The following examples show successful read of the endpoint links from the RD, with example location value /rd/4521 and example registration payload of .

;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor"; anchor="coap://spurious.example.com:5683", ;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor" ]]>

An iPATCH (or PATCH) update () can add, remove or change the links of a registration. Those operations are out of scope of this document, and will require media types suitable for modifying sets of links.

Endpoint and group lookups result in links to registration resources and group resources, respectively. Endpoint registration resources are annotated with their endpoint names (ep), sectors (d, if present) and registration base URI (base) as well as a constant resource type (rt=”core.rd-ep”); the lifetime (lt) is not reported. Additional endpoint attributes are added as link attributes to their endpoint link unless their specification says otherwise. Group resources are annotated with their group names (gp), sector (d, if present) and multicast address (base, if present) as well as a constant resource type (rt=”core.rd-gp”). Serializations derived from Link Format, SHOULD present links to groups and endpoints in path-absolute form or, if required, as absolute references. (This approach avoids the RFC6690 ambiguities.) While Endpoint Lookup does expose the registration resources, the RD does not need to make them accessible to clients. Clients SHOULD NOT attempt to dereference or manipulate them. A Resource Directory can report endpoints or groups in lookup that are not hosted at the same address. Lookup clients MUST be prepared to see arbitrary URIs as registration or group resources in the results and treat them as opaque identifiers; the precise semantics of such links are left to future specifications. For groups, a Resource Directory as specified here does not provide a lookup mechanism for the resources that can be accessed on a group’s multicast address (ie. no lookup will return links like <coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]/light>;... for a group registered with base=coap://[ff35...]). Such an additional lookup interface could be specified in an extension document. The following example shows a client performing an endpoint type (et) lookup with the value oic.d.sensor (which is currently a registered rt value):

;base="coap://[2001:db8:3::127]:61616";ep="node5"; et="oic.d.sensor";ct="40", ;base="coap://[2001:db8:3::129]:61616";ep="node7"; et="oic.d.sensor";ct="40";d="floor-3" ]]>

The following example shows a client performing a group lookup for all groups:

;gp="lights1";d="example.com"; base="coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]", ;gp="lights2";d="example.com"; base="coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::2]" ]]>

The following example shows a client performing a lookup for all groups the endpoint “node1” belongs to:

;gp="lights1" ]]>

Understanding the semantics of a link-format document and its URI references is a journey through different documents ( defining URIs, defining link-format documents based on which defines link headers, and providing the transport). This appendix summarizes the mechanisms and semantics at play from an entry in .well-known/core to a resource lookup. This text is primarily aimed at people entering the field of Constrained Restful Environments from applications that previously did not use web mechanisms.

Let’s start this example with a very simple host, 2001:db8:f0::1. A client that follows classical CoAP Discovery ( Section 7), sends the following multicast request to learn about neighbours supporting resources with resource-type “temperature”. The client sends a link-local multicast:

;rt=temperature;ct=0 ]]>

where the response is sent by the server, [2001:db8:f0::1]:5683. While the client – on the practical or implementation side – can just go ahead and create a new request to [2001:db8:f0::1]:5683 with Uri-Path: temp, the full resolution steps without any shortcuts are:

The client parses the single returned record. The link’s target (sometimes called “href”) is “/temp”, which is a relative URI that needs resolving. As long as all involved links follow the restrictions set forth for this document (see ), the base URI to resolve this against the requested URI. The URI of the requested resource can be composed by following the steps of section 6.5 (with an addition at the end of 8.2) into “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/.well-known/core”. The record’s target is resolved by replacing the path “/.well-known/core” from the Base URI (section 5.2 ) with the relative target URI “/temp” into “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp”.

Some more information but the record’s target can be obtained from the payload: the resource type of the target is “temperature”, and its content type is text/plain (ct=0). A relation in a web link is a three-part statement that the context resource has a named relation to the target resource, like “This page has its table of contents at /toc.html”. In link-format documents, there is an implicit “host relation” specified with default parameter: rel=”hosts”. In our example, the context of the link is the URI of the requested document itself. A full English expression of the “host relation” is: ‘coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/.well-known/core is hosting the resource coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp, which is of the resource type “temperature” and can be accessed using the text/plain content format.’

Omitting the rt=temperature filter, the discovery query would have given some more records in the payload:

;rt=temperature;ct=0, ;rt=light-lux;ct=0, ;anchor="/sensors/temp";rel=alternate, ;anchor="/sensors/temp"; rel="describedby" ]]>

Parsing the third record, the client encounters the “anchor” parameter. It is a URI relative to the document’s Base URI and is thus resolved to “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp”. That is the context resource of the link, so the “rel” statement is not about the target and the document Base URI any more, but about the target and that address. Thus, the third record could be read as “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp has an alternate representation at coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/t”. The fourth record can be read as “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp is described by http://www.example.com/sensors/t123”.

The resource directory tries to carry the semantics obtainable by classical CoAP discovery over to the resource lookup interface as faithfully as possible. For the following queries, we will assume that the simple host has used Simple Registration to register at the resource directory that was announced to it, sending this request from its UDP port [2001:db8:f0::1]:6553:

The resource directory would have accepted the registration, and queried the simple host’s .well-known/core by itself. As a result, the host is registered as an endpoint in the RD with the name “simple-host1”. The registration is active for 90000 seconds, and the endpoint registration Base URI is “coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/” because that is the address the registration was sent from (and no explicit con= was given). If the client now queries the RD as it would previously have issued a multicast request, it would go through the RD discovery steps by fetching coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd-lookup-res, obtain coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res as the resource lookup endpoint, and issue a request to coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature to receive the following data:

;rt=temperature;ct=0; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]" ]]>

This is not literally the same response that it would have received from a multicast request, but it would contain the (almost) same statement: ‘coap://[2001:db8:f0::1] is hosting the resource coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp, which is of the resource type “temperature” and can be accessed using the text/plain content format.’ (The difference is whether / or /.well-known/core hosts the resources, which is subject of ongoing discussion about RFC6690). To complete the examples, the client could also query all resources hosted at the endpoint with the known endpoint name “simple-host1”. A request to coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res?ep=simple-host1 would return

;rt=temperature;ct=0; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]", ;rt=light-lux;ct=0; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]", ; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp";rel=alternate, ; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp";rel="describedby" ]]>

All the target and anchor references are already in absolute form there, which don’t need to be resolved any further. Had the simple host registered with an explicit context (eg. ?ep=simple-host1&con=coap+tcp://simple-host1.example.com), that context would have been used to resolve the relative anchor values instead, giving

;rt=temperature;ct=0; anchor="coap+tcp://simple-host1.example.com" ]]>

and analogous records.

While link-format and Link headers look very similar and are based on the same model of typed links, there are some differences between and , which are dealt with differently: “Resolving the target against the anchor”: Section 2.1 states that the anchor of a link is used as the Base URI against which the term inside the angle brackets (the target) is resolved, falling back to the resource’s URI with paths stripped off (its “Origin”). Section B.2 describes that the anchor is immaterial to the resolution of the target reference. RFC6690, in the same section, also states that absent anchors set the context of the link to the target’s URI with its path stripped off, while according to Section 3.2, the context is the resource’s base URI. In the context of a Resource Directory, the authors decided not to not let this become an issue by requiring that RFC6690 links be serialized in a way that either rule set can be applied and give the same results. Note that all examples of , and this document comply with that rule. The Modernized Link Format is introduced in to formalize what it means to apply the ruleset of RFC8288 to Link Format documents. There is no percent encoding in link-format documents. A link-format document is a UTF-8 encoded string of Unicode characters and does not have percent encoding, while Link headers are practically ASCII strings that use percent encoding for non-ASCII characters, stating the encoding explicitly when required. For example, while a Link header in a page about a Swedish city might read Link: </temperature/Malm%C3%B6>;rel="live-environment-data" a link-format document from the same source might describe the link as </temperature/Malmö>;rel="live-environment-data" Parsers and producers of link-format and header data need to be aware of this difference.

[ This appendix should not show up in a published version of this document. ] The protocol negotiation that is being worked on in makes use of the Resource Directory. Until that document is update to use the latest resource-directory specification, here are some examples of protocol negotiation with the current Resource Directory: An endpoint could register as follows from its address [2001:db8:f1::2]:5683:

;ct=0;rt="temperature";if="core.s" Res: 2.01 Created Location-Path: /rd/1234 ]]>

An endpoint lookup would just reflect the registered attributes:

;ep="node1";con="coap://[2001:db8:f1::2]:5683"; at="coap+tcp://[2001:db8:f1::2]" ]]>

A UDP client would then see the following in a resource lookup:

;ct=0;rt="temperature"; if="core.s"; anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f1::2]" ]]>

while a TCP capable client could say:

;ct=0;rt="temperature"; if="core.s";anchor="coap+tcp://[2001:db8:f1::2]" ]]>

The CoRE Link Format as described in is unsuitable for some use cases of the Resource Directory, and their resolution scheme is often misunderstood by developers familiar with . For the correct application of base URIs, we describe the interpretation of a Link Format document as a Modernized Link Format. In Modernized Link Format, the document is processed as in Link Format, with the exception of Section 2.1 of : The URI-reference inside angle brackets (“<>”) describes the target URI of the link. If it is a relative reference, it is resolved against the base URI of the document. The context of the link is expressed by the “anchor” parameter; if it is a relative reference, it is resolved against the document’s base URI. In absence of the “anchor” attribute, the base URI is the link’s context. Content formats derived from which inherit its resolution rules, like JSON and CBOR link format of , can be interpreted in analogy to that. For where the Resource Directory is concerned, all common forms of links (eg. all the examples of RFC6690) yield identical results. When interpreting data read from .well-known/core, differences in interpretation only affect links where the absent anchor attribute means coap://host/ according to RFC6690 and coap://host/.well-known/core according to Modernized Link format; those typically only occur in conjunction with the vaguely defined implicit “hosts” relationship.

When developing endpoints, ie. when generating documents that will be submitted to a Resource Directory, the differences between Modernized Link Format and RFC6690 can be ignored as long as all relative references start with a slash, and any of the following applies: There is no anchor attribute, and the context of the link does not matter to the application. Example: </sensors>;ct=40 The anchor is a relative reference. Example: </t>;anchor="/sensors/temp";rel="alternate The target is an absolute reference. Example: <http://www.example.com/sensors/t123>;anchor="/sensors/temp";rel="describedby"