CoRE Z. Shelby Internet-Draft Sensinode Intended status: Standards Track S. Krco Expires: August 29, 2013 Ericsson C. Bormann Universitaet Bremen TZI February 25, 2013 CoRE Resource Directory draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-05 Abstract 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 resources descriptions. Furthermore, new link attributes useful in conjunction with an RD are defined. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Architecture and Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Use Case: Cellular M2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Use Case: Home and Building Automation . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Simple Directory Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Finding a Directory Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Resource Directory Function Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5. Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Group Function Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. Register a Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. Group Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. RD Lookup Function Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. New Link-Format Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.1. Resource Instance 'ins' attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.2. Export 'exp' attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 1. Introduction The Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) work aims at realizing the REST architecture in a suitable form for the most constrained nodes (e.g. 8-bit microcontrollers with limited RAM and ROM) and networks (e.g. 6LoWPAN). 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 [RFC5988]. The use of Web Linking for the description and discovery of resources hosted by constrained web servers is specified by the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]. This specification however only describes how to discover resources from the web server that hosts them by requesting /.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 registrer, 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 [I-D.ietf-core-coap], they may be applied in an equivalent manner to HTTP [RFC2616]. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 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 [RFC5988] and [RFC6690]. Readers should also be familiar with the terms and concepts discussed in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. The URI Template format is used to describe the REST interfaces defined in this specification [RFC6570]. This specification makes use of the following additional terminology: Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Resource Directory An web entity that stores information about web resources and implements the REST interfaces defined in this specification for registration and lookup of those resources. Domain In the context of a Resource Directory, a domain is a logical grouping of endpoints. All endpoint within a domain MUST be unique. This specification assumes that the list of Domains supported by an RD is pre-configured by that RD. Group In the context of a Resource Directory, a group is a logical grouping of endpoints for the purpose of group communications. All groups within a domain MUST be unique. Endpoint An endpoint (EP) is a term used to describe a web server or client in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. 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 MUST be unique within the associated domain of the registration. 3. Architecture and Use Cases The resource directory architecture is shown in Figure 1. A Resource Directory (RD) is used as a repository for Web Links [RFC5988] about resources hosted on other web servers, which are called endpoints (EP). An endpoint is a web server associated with a port, thus 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 entries), for the RD to validate entries, and for clients to lookup resources from the RD. Endpoints themselves can also act as clients. An RD can be logically segmented by the use of Domains. The domain an endpoint is associated with can be defined by the RD or configured by an outside entity. Endpoints are assumed to proactively register and maintain resource directory entries on the RD, which are soft state and need to be periodially refreshed. An endpoint is provided with interfaces to register, update and remove a resource directory entry. Furthermore, a mechanism to discover a RD using the CoRE Link Format is defined. It is also possible for an RD to proactively discover Web Links from endpoints and add them as resource directory entries, or to validate existing resource directory entries. A lookup interface for discovering any of the Web Links held in the RD is provided using the Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 CoRE Link Format. Registration Lookup +----+ | | | EP |---- | | +----+ ---- | | --|- +------+ | +----+ | ----| | | +--------+ | EP | ---------|-----| RD |----|-----| Client | +----+ | ----| | | +--------+ --|- +------+ | +----+ ---- | | | EP |---- | | +----+ Figure 1: The resource directory architecture. 3.1. Use Case: Cellular M2M 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, i.e. machines. The machines are connected directly to a mobile network using appropriate embedded air 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. In a typical scenario, during a boot-up procedure (and periodically afterwards), the machines (endpoints) register with a Resource Directory (for example EPs installed on vehicles enabling tracking of their position for the fleet management purposes and monitoring environment parameters) hosted by the mobile operator or somewhere else in the network, submiting a description of own capabilities. Due to the usual network configuration of mobile networks, the EPs attached to the mobile network do not have routable addresses. Therefore, a remote server is usually used to provide proxy access to the EPs. The address of each (proxy) endpoint on this server is included in the resource description stored in the RD. The users, for example mobile applications for environment monitoring, contact the RD, look-up the endpoints capable of providing information about Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 the environment using appropriate set of tags, obtain information on how to contact them (URLs of the proxy server) and then initate interaction to obtain information that is finally processed, displayed on the screen and usually stored in a database. Similarly, fleet management systems provide a set of credentials along with the appropriate tags to the RD to look-up for EPs deployed on the vehicles the application is responsible for. 3.2. Use Case: Home and Building Automation Home and commercial building automation systems can benefit from the use of M2M web services. The use of CoRE in home automation across multiple subnets is described in [I-D.brandt-coap-subnet-discovery] and in commercial building automation in [I-D.vanderstok-core-bc]. The discovery requirements of these applications are demanding. Home automation usually relies on run-time discovery to commision 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. The exporting of resource information to other discovery systems is also important in these automation applications. In home automation there is a need to interact with other consumer electronics, which may already support DNS-SD, and in building automation larger resource directories or DNS-SD covering multiple buildings. 4. Simple Directory Discovery Not all endpoints hosting resources are expected to know how to implement the Resource Directory Function Set and thus explicitly register with a Resource Directory (or other such directory server). Instead, simple endpoints can implement the generic Simple Directory Discovery approach described in this section. An RD implementing this specification MUST implement Simple Directory Discovery. However, there may be security reasons why this form of directory discovery would be disabled. This approach requires that the endpoint makes the hosted resources that it wants discovered available as links on its /.well-known/core interface as specified in [RFC6690]. The endpoint then finds one or more IP addresses of the directory server it wants to know about its resources as described in Section 4.1. An endpoint that wants to make itself discoverable occasionally sends Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 a POST request to the /.well-known/core URI of any candidate directory server that it finds. The body of the POST request is either o empty, in which case the directory server is encouraged by this POST request to perform GET requests at the requesting server's default discovery URI. or o a link-format document, which indicates the specific services that the requesting server wants to make known to the directory server. The directory server integrates the information it received this way into its resource directory. It MAY make the information 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. The following example shows an endpoint using simple resource discovery, by simply sending a POST with its links in the body to a directory. EP RD | | | -- POST /.well-known/core "..." ---> | | | | | | <---- 2.01 Created ------------------------- | | | 4.1. Finding a Directory Server Endpoints that want to contact a directory server can obtain candidate IP addresses for such servers in a number of ways. In a 6LoWPAN, good candidates can be taken from: o specific static configuration (e.g., anycast addresses), if any, o the ABRO option of 6LoWPAN-ND [RFC6775], o other ND options that happen to point to servers (such as RDNSS), Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 o DHCPv6 options that might be defined later. In networks with more inexpensive use of multicast, the candidate IP address may be a well-known multicast address, i.e. directory servers are found by simply sending POST requests to that well-known multicast address (details TBD). As some of these sources 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. E.g., 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. 5. Resource Directory Function Set This section defines the REST interfaces between an RD and endpoint servers, which is called the Resource Directory Function Set. Although the examples throughout this section assume use of CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap], these REST interfaces can also be realized using HTTP [RFC2616]. An RD implementing this specification MUST support the discovery, registration, update, and removal interfaces defined in this section and MAY support the validation interface. For the purpose of validation, an endpoint implementing this specification SHOULD support ETag validation on /.well-known/core (which is very straightforward for static /.well-known/core link documents). Resource directory entries are designed to be easily exported to other discovery mechanisms such as DNS-SD. For that reason, parameters that would meaningfully be mapped to DNS are limited to a maximum length of 63 bytes. 5.1. Discovery Before an endpoint can make use of an RD, it must first know the RD's IP address, port and the path of its RD Function Set. There can be several mechanisms for discovering the RD including assuming a default location (e.g. on an Edge Router in a LoWPAN), by assigning an anycast address to the RD, using DHCP, or by discovering the RD using the CoRE Link Format (also see Section 4.1). This section defines discovery of the RD using the well-known interface of the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] as the required mechanism. It is however expected that RDs will also be discoverable via other methods depending on the deployment. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Discovery is performed by sending either a multicast or unicast GET request to /.well-known/core and including a Resource Type (rt) parameter [RFC6690] with the value "core.rd" in the query string. Likewise, a Resource Type parameter value of "core.rd-lookup" is used to discover the RD Lookup Function Set. Upon success, the response will contain a payload with a link format entry for each RD discovered, with the URL indicating the root resource of the RD. When performing multicast discovery, the multicast IP address used will depend on the scope required and the multicast capabilities of the network. An RD implementation of this specification MUST support query filtering for the rt parameter as defined in [RFC6690]. The discovery request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: EP -> RD Method: GET URI Template: /.well-known/core{?rt} URI Template Variables: rt := Resource Type (optional). MAY contain the value "core.rd", "core.rd-lookup" or "core.rd*" Content-Type: application/link-format (if any) The following response codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.05 "Content" with an application/link-format payload containing a matching entry for the RD resource. Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" is returned in case no matching entry is found for a unicast request. Failure: No error response to a multicast request. Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request" The following example shows an endpoint discovering an RD using this interface, thus learning that the base RD resource is at /rd. Note that it is up to the RD to choose its base RD resource, although it is recommended to use default locations where possible. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 EP RD | | | ----- GET /.well-known/core?rt=core.rd* ------> | | | | | | <---- 2.05 Content "; rt="core.rd" ------ | | | Req: GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd* Res: 2.05 Content ;rt="core.rd", ;rt="core.rd-lookup", ;rt="core.rd-group" 5.2. Registration After discovering the location of an RD Function Set, an endpoint MAY register its resources 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 along with query string parameters indicating the name of the endpoint, its domain and the lifetime of the registration. All parameters except the endpoint name are optional. It is expected that other specifications MAY define further parameters (it is to be determined if a registry of parameters is needed for this purpose). The RD then creates a new resource or updates an existing resource in the RD and returns its location. An endpoint MUST use that location when refreshing registrations using this interface. Endpoint resources in the RD are kept active for the period indicated by the lifetime parameter. The endpoint is responsible for refreshing the entry 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 parameter does not create multiple RD entries. The registration request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: EP -> RD Method: POST Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 URI Template: /{+rd}{?ep,d,et,lt,con} URI Template Variables: rd := RD Function Set path (mandatory). This is the path of the RD Function Set. An RD SHOULD use the value "rd" for this variable whenever possible. ep := Endpoint (mandatory). The endpoint identifier or name of the registering node, unique within that domain. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. d := Domain (optional). The domain to which this endpoint belongs. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. Optional. When this parameter is elided, the RD MAY associate the endpoint with a configured default domain. et := Endpoint Type (optional). The semantic type of the endpoint. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. Optional. lt := Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included, a default value of 86400 (24 hours) SHOULD be assumed. con := Context (optional). This parameter sets the scheme, address and port at which this server is available in the form scheme://host:port. Optional. In the absence of this parameter the scheme of the protocol, source IP address and source port of the register request are assumed. Content-Type: application/link-format The following response codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.01 "Created". The Location header MUST be included with the new resource entry for the endpoint. This Location MUST be a stable identifier generated by the RD as it is used for all subsequent operations on this registration (update, delete). Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following example shows an endpoint with the name "node1" registering two resources to an RD using this interface. The resulting location /rd/4521 is just an example of an RD generated Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 location. EP RD | | | --- POST /rd?ep=node1 " | | | | | | <-- 2.01 Created Location: /rd/4521 ---------- | | | Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd?ep=node1 Payload: ;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor", ;ct=41;rt="light-lux";if="sensor" Res: 2.01 Created Location: /rd/4521 5.3. Update The update interface is used by an endpoint to refresh or update its registration with an RD. To use the interface, the endpoint sends a PUT request to the resource returned in the Location option in the response to the first registration. An update MAY contain registration parameters if there have been changes since the last registration or update. Parameters that have not changed SHOULD NOT be included in an update. Upon receiving an update request, the RD resets the timeout for that endpoint and stores the values of the parameters included in the update (if any). The update request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: EP -> RD Method: PUT URI Template: /{+location}{?et,lt,con} URI Template Variables: location := This is the Location path returned by the RD as a result of a successful registration. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 12] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 et := Endpoint Type (optional). The semantic type of the endpoint. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 btyes. Optional. lt := Lifetime (optional). Lifetime of the registration in seconds. Range of 60-4294967295. If no lifetime is included, a default value of 86400 (24 hours) SHOULD be assumed. con := Context (optional). This parameter sets the scheme, address and port at which this server is available in the form scheme://host:port. Optional. In the absence of this parameter the scheme of the protocol, source IP address and source port used to register are assumed. Content-Type: None The following response codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.04 "Changed" in the update was successfully processed. Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following example shows an endpoint updating a new set of resources to an RD using this interface. EP RD | | | --- PUT /rd/4521 --------------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.04 Changed ---------------------------- | | | Req: PUT /rd/4521 Res: 2.04 Changed 5.4. Validation In some cases, an RD may want to validate that it has the latest version of an endpoint's resources. This can be performed with a GET on the well-known interface of the CoRE Link Format including the Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 13] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 latest ETag stored for that endpoint. For the purpose of validation, an endpoint implementing this specification SHOULD support ETag validation on /.well-known/core. The validation request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: RD -> EP Method: GET Path: /.well-known/core Parameters: None ETag: The ETag option MUST be included The following responses codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.03 "Valid" in case the ETag matches Success: 2.05 "Content" in case the ETag does not match, the response MUST include the most recent resource representation (application/link-format) and its corresponding ETag. Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. The following examples shows a successful validation. EP RD | | | <--- GET /.well-known/core ETag: 0x40 -------- | | | | | | --- 2.03 Valid -----------------------------> | | | Req: GET /.well-known/core ETag: 0x40 Res: 2.03 Valid Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 14] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 5.5. Removal Although RD entries have soft state and will eventually timeout after their lifetime, an endpoint SHOULD explicitly remove its 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. The removal request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: EP -> RD Method: DELETE URI Template: /{+location} URI Template Variables: location := This is the Location path returned by the RD as a result of a successful registration. The following responses codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.02 "Deleted" upon successful deletion Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following examples shows successful removal of the endpoint from the RD. EP RD | | | --- DELETE /rd/4521 ------------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.02 Deleted ---------------------------- | | | Req: DELETE /rd/4521 Res: 2.02 Deleted Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 15] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 6. Group Function Set This section defines a function set for the creation of groups of endpoints for the purpose of managing and looking up endpoints for group operations. The group function set is similar to the resource directory function set, in that a group 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. 6.1. Register a Group In order to create a group, a management entity used to configure groups, makes a request to the RD indicating the name of the group to create (or update), the optional domain the group belongs to, and the optional multicast address of the group. The registration message includes the list of endpoints that belong to that group. If an endpoint has already registered with the RD, the RD attempts to use the context of the endpoint from its RD endpoint entry. If the client registering the group knows the endpoint has already registered, then it MAY send a blank target URI for that endpoint link when registering the group. The registration request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: Manager -> RD Method: POST URI Template: /{+rd-group}{?gp,d,con} URI Template Variables: rd-group := RD Group Function Set path (mandatory). This is the path of the RD Group Function Set. An RD SHOULD use the value "rd-group" for this variable whenever possible. gp := Group Name (mandatory). The name of the group to be created or replaced, unique within that domain. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. d := Domain (optional). The domain to which this group belongs. The maximum length of this parameter is 63 bytes. Optional. When this parameter is elided, the RD MAY associate the endpoint with a configured default domain. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 16] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 con := Context (optional). This parameter is used to set the IP multicast address at which this server is available in the form scheme://multicast-address:port. Optional. In the absence of this parameter no multicast address is configured. Content-Type: application/link-format The following response codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.01 "Created". The Location header MUST be included with the new group entry. This Location MUST be a stable identifier generated by the RD as it is used for delete operations on this registration. Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following example shows a group with the name "lights" registering two endpoints to an RD using this interface. The resulting location /rd-group/12 is just an example of an RD generated group location. EP RD | | | - POST /rd-group?gp=lights "<>;ep=node1..." --> | | | | | | <---- 2.01 Created Location: /rd-group/12 ---- | | | Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd-group?gp=lights Payload: <>;ep="node1", <>;ep="node2" Res: 2.01 Created Location: /rd-group/12 6.2. Group Removal A group can be removed simply by sending a removal message to the location returned when registering the group. Removing a group MUST NOT remove the endpoints of the group from the RD. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 17] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 The removal request interface is specified as follows: Interaction: Manager -> RD Method: DELETE URI Template: /{+location} URI Template Variables: location := This is the Location path returned by the RD as a result of a successful group registration. The following responses codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.02 "Deleted" upon successful deletion Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following examples shows successful removal of the group from the RD. EP RD | | | --- DELETE /rd-group/412 -------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.02 Deleted ---------------------------- | | | Req: DELETE /rd-group/12 Res: 2.02 Deleted 7. RD Lookup Function Set In order for an RD to be used for discovering resources registered with it, a lookup interface can be provided using this function set. 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 Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 18] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 interfaces (e.g. supporting context or semantic based lookup). This function set allows lookups for domains, groups, endpoints and resources using attributes defined in the RD Function Set and for use with the CoRE Link Format. The result of a lookup request is the list of links (if any) in CoRE Link Format corresponding to the type of lookup. The target of these links SHOULD be the actual location of the domain, endpoint or resource, but MAY be an intermediate proxy e.g. in the case of an HTTP lookup interface for CoAP endpoints. Multiple query parameters MAY be included in a lookup, all included parameters MUST match for a resource to be returned. The character '*' MAY be included at the end of a parameter value as a wildcard operator. The lookup interface is specified as follows: Interaction: Client -> RD Method: GET URI Template: /{+rd-lookup-base}/ {lookup-type}{?d,ep,gp,et,rt,page,count,resource-param} Parameters: rd-lookup-base := RD Lookup Function Set path (mandatory). This is the path of the RD Lookup Function Set. An RD SHOULD use the value "rd-lookup" for this variable whenever possible. lookup-type := ("d", "ep", "res", "gp") (mandatory) This variable is used to select the kind of lookup to perform (domain, endpoint or resource). ep := Endpoint (optional). Used for endpoint, group and resource lookups. d := Domain (optional). Used for domain, group, endpoint and resource lookups. page := Page (optional). Parameter can not be used without the count parameter. Results are returned from result set in pages that contains 'count' results starting from index (page * count). count := Count (optional). Number of results is limited to this parameter value. If the parameter is not present, then an RD implementation specific default value SHOULD be used. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 19] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 rt := Resource type (optional). Used for group, endpoint and resource lookups. rt := Endpoint type (optional). Used for group, endpoint and resource lookups. resource-param := Link attribute parameters (optional). Any link attribute as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC6690], used for resource lookups. The following responses codes are defined for this interface: Success: 2.05 "Content" with an application/link-format payload containing a matching entries for the lookup. Failure: 4.04 "Not Found" in case no matching entry is found for a unicast request. Failure: No error response to a multicast request. Failure: 4.00 "Bad Request". Malformed request. Failure: 5.03 "Service Unavailable". Service could not perform the operation. The following example shows a client performing a resource lookup: Client RD | | | ----- GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature -----------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.05 Content ";rt="temperature" ---- | | | Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature Res: 2.05 Content The following example shows a client performing an endpoint lookup: Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 20] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Client RD | | | ----- GET /rd-lookup/ep?et=power-node --------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.05 Content ";ep="node5" ----------- | | | Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?et=power-node Res: 2.05 Content ;ep="node5", ;ep="node7" The following example shows a client performing a domain lookup: Client RD | | | ----- GET /rd-lookup/d ----------------------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.05 Content ";d=domain1,;d=domain2 --------- | | | Req: GET /rd-lookup/d Res: 2.05 Content ;d="domain1", ;d="domain2" The following example shows a client performing a group lookup for all groups: Client RD | | | ----- GET /rd-lookup/gp ---------------------------------> | | | | | Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 21] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 | <-- 2.05 Content ;gp="lights1";d="domain1" -- | | | Req: GET /rd-lookup/gp Res: 2.05 Content ;gp="lights1";d="domain1" The following example shows a client performing a lookup for all endpoints in a particular group: Client RD | | | ----- GET GET /rd-lookup/ep?gp=lights1-------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.05 Content ";d=domain1,;d=domain2 --------- | | | Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?gp=lights1 Res: 2.05 Content ;ep="node1", ;ep="node2", The following example shows a client performing a lookup for all groups an endpoint belongs to: Client RD | | | ----- GET /rd-lookup/gp?ep=node1 ------------------------> | | | | | | <-- 2.05 Content ";d=domain1,;d=domain2 --------- | | | Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 22] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Req: GET /rd-lookup/gp?ep=node1 Res: 2.05 Content ;gp="lights1";ep="node1", 8. New Link-Format Attributes When using the CoRE Link Format to describe resources being discovered by or posted to a resource directory service, additional information about those resources is useful. This specification defines the following new attributes for use in the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]: link-extension = ( "ins" "=" quoted-string ) ; Max 63 bytes link-extension = ( "exp" ) 8.1. Resource Instance 'ins' attribute The Resource Instance "ins" attribute is an identifier for this resource, which makes it possible to distinguish from other similar resources. This attribute is similar in use to the "Instance" portion of a DNS-SD record, and SHOULD be unique across resources with the same Resource Type attribute in the domain it is used. A Resource Instance might be a descriptive string like "Ceiling Light, Room 3", a short ID like "AF39" or a unique UUID or iNumber. This attribute is used by a Resource Directory to distinguish between multiple instances of the same resource type within a system. This attribute MUST be no more than 63 bytes in length. The resource identifier attribute MUST NOT appear more than once in a link description. 8.2. Export 'exp' attribute The Export "exp" attribute is used as a flag to indicate that a link description MAY be exported by a resource directory to external directories. The CoRE Link Format is used for many purposes between CoAP endpoints. Some are useful mainly locally, for example checking the observability of a resource before accessing it, determining the size of a resource, or traversing dynamic resource structures. However, other links are very useful to be exported to other directories, for example the entry point resource to a functional service. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 23] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 9. Security Considerations This document needs the same security considerations as described in Section 7 of [RFC5988] and Section 6 of [RFC6690]. The /.well-known/ core resource may be protected e.g. using DTLS when hosted on a CoAP server as described in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. Access control SHOULD be performed separately for the RD Function Set and the RD Lookup Function Set, 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 domain, endpoint or resource level. 10. IANA Considerations "core.rd", "core.rd-group" and "core.rd-lookup" resource types need to be registered with the resource type registry defined by [RFC6690]. The "exp" attribute needs to be registered when a future Web Linking attribute is created. 11. Acknowledgments Szymon Sasin, Kerry Lynn, Esko Dijk, Peter van der Stok, Anders Brandt, Matthieu Vial, Sampo Ukkola and Linyi Tian have provided helpful comments, discussions and ideas to improve and shape this document. The authors would also like to thank their collagues from the EU FP7 SENSEI project, where many of the resource directory concepts were originally developed. 12. Changelog Changes from -04 to -05: o Restricted Update to parameter updates. o Added pagination support for the Lookup interface. o Minor editing, bug fixes and reference updates. o Added group support. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 24] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 o Changed rt= to et= for the registration & update interface Changes from -03 to -04: o Added the ins= parameter back for the DNS-SD mapping. o Integrated the Simple Directory Discovery from Carsten. o Editorial improvements. o Fixed the use of ETags. Changes from -02 to -03: o Changed the endpoint name back to a single registration parameter ep= and removed the h= and ins= parameters. o Updated REST interface descriptions to use RFC6570 URI Template format. o Introduced an improved RD Lookup design as its own function set. o Improved the security considerations section. o Made the POST registration interface idempotent by requiring the ep= paramter to be present. Changes from -01 to -02: o Added a terminology section. o Changed the inclusing of an ETag in registration or update to a MAY. o Added the concept of an RD Domain and a registration parameter for it. o Recommended the Location returned from a registration to be stable, allowing for endpoint and Domain information to be changed during updates. o Changed the lookup interface to accept endpoint and Domain as query string parameters to control the scope of a lookup. 13. References Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 25] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010. [RFC6570] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570, March 2012. [RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, August 2012. 13.2. Informative References [I-D.brandt-coap-subnet-discovery] Brandt, A., "Discovery of CoAP servers across subnets", draft-brandt-coap-subnet-discovery-00 (work in progress), March 2011. [I-D.ietf-core-coap] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-13 (work in progress), December 2012. [I-D.vanderstok-core-bc] Stok, P. and K. Lynn, "CoAP Utilization for Building Control", draft-vanderstok-core-bc-05 (work in progress), October 2011. [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, November 2012. Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 26] Internet-Draft CoRE Resource Directory February 2013 Authors' Addresses Zach Shelby Sensinode Kidekuja 2 Vuokatti 88600 FINLAND Phone: +358407796297 Email: zach@sensinode.com Srdjan Krco Ericsson Phone: Email: srdjan.krco@ericsson.com Carsten Bormann Universitaet Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Fax: +49-421-218-7000 Email: cabo@tzi.org Shelby, et al. Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 27]