core K. Li Internet-Draft L. Tian Intended status: Standards Track B. Leiba Expires:September 27,November 17, 2011 Huawei TechnologiesMarch 26,May 16, 2011 CoAP Option Extension : Sizedraft-li-core-coap-size-option-00draft-li-core-coap-size-option-01 Abstract This document defines an extension to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) to add a new option Size, which is used to indicate the resource size in a Put/Post request or in a Get response. Note Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to core@ietf.org. 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 onSeptember 27,November 17, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Size Option Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Size Option Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Using the Size Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Interaction with Block option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Usage in Post/Put Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Usage in Get Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction This specification adds a new option Size to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). The main purpose is to indicate the resource size in a Put/Post request, or in a Get response. 1.1. Justification If the requester wants to retrieve large resource data using a Get request, it is better to know in advance the size of the resource data. Currently in the Link Format [I-D.ietf-core-link-format] specification, the maximum size estimate attribute "sz" is defined to give an indication of the estimated maximum size of the resource data. By using this, the requester is able to know whether it is capable to accept the resource data. However it is not possible for the requester to know exactly how many blocks will be transmitted, therefore, concurrent Get can't be supported. Also in the Post/Put request (for example, a firmware update), it is not possible for the recipient to know in advance what is the size of the data to be transmitted. According to the current CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] specification, when transmitting large data, the recipient will return an error code 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) to the requester when the data size is too big to be accepted by the recipient. In this case the whole transmission has failed, and the previous received data will be useless. This is a waste of transmission resources. This document adds the new Size Option to provide the capability to indicate the accurate size in a Get response or in a Post/Put request. By using the Size Option in a Get response, the CoAP Server can let the requester know the actual size of the resource in advance. This is especially useful for large resources, and can facilitate the requester to allocate enough buffer space before transmission. Also, using the block size, the requester can calculate the total number of blocks and can use concurrent Get requests to retrieve resource data using the Block Option. Finally, the receipent can check the resource size after the data transmission has been completed. By using the Size Option in a Put/Post request, the requester can indicate the resource size in the first Block Option message, to let the recipient know the resource data size in advance. If the recipient is not able to receive the data with the indicated size, the recipient can tell the requester in a response code, avoiding the cost of the actual data transmission. 1.2. 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]. 2. Size Option Extension 2.1. Size Option Definition +------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+---------------+ | Type | C/E | Name | Data type | Length | Default | +------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+---------------+ | 12 | E | Size | uint | 1-4 B | | +------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+---------------+ 2.2. Using the Size Option The Size Option is used to indicate the size of the resource data measured in bytes. It can be used in a Get response to give indication about the resource data size. The Get request including Size=0 is treated as a request to get the size of the resource representation (but not the resource payload). Also it can be used in a Post/Put request in the first Block Option message. The Size option is not expected to be included for small resources that can easily be carried in a single MTU, but SHOULD be included for resources larger thanthat.that, if the Size information is available. In the absence of the option, the size of the resource data is calculated after the data transmitted to the recipient, either from the CoAP payload length or based on number of blocks and block size. If the Size option is specified itMUSTSHOULD be accurate at that time, andMUSTSHOULD NOT be an estimate. But due to the dynamic change of the resource data, the Size may not be accurate. If the value of Size option is not the same as the actual transmitted data, the recipient MUST take the size of the actual transmitted data as accurate, and ignore the Size option. In case that the recipient gets all the data but it is still smaller than the Size, the recipient SHOULD stop the transmission. If the recipient finds out the transmitted data reaches the Size limit, and there's more data left, the recipient SHOULD continue to transmit the remaining data. This option is "Elective". It MUST NOT occur more than once. 3. Interaction with Block option 3.1. Usage in Post/Put Request In the Put/Post request for the large resource data, the requester can indicate the size of the resource using the Size option. If the recipient is not capable to receive the data with the indicated size, the recipient MUST return a 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) response code to the requester, and the data transmission is avoided, so that the cost of the actual data transmission is saved. 3.2. Usage in Get Response In the Get response for the large resource data, the CoAP Server can use Size option to indicate the resource size and return the first block data. The requester can calculate the number of blocks to be transferred based on the block size and the resource size, and use concurrent Get requests to retrieve resource data. 4. Examples This section gives a number of short examples with message flows to illustrate the use of Size option in GET response, or in a PUT/POST request. The first example (Figure 1) shows that the requester does not know the resource data size, and sends the Get request, the recipient can send back the resource size using the Size option and the first block. In the subsequent Get request, the requester can calculate the number of blocks and use concurrent Get requests to retrieve resource data. CLIENT SERVER | | | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status ------> | | | | <------ ACK [MID=1234], 2.00 OK, 0/1/128, Size: 5000 | | | | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 1/0/128 ------> | | | | <------ ACK [MID=1235], 2.00 OK, 1/1/128 | | | | ... ... | | | | CON [MID=1280], GET, /status, 40/0/128 ------> | | | | <------ ACK [MID=1280], 2.00 OK, 40/0/128 | | | Figure 1: Size Option in a GET response The second example (Figure 2) shows that the requester sends a Put request with the Size option to indicate the resource data size, the recipient determines that the resource data is too large to be accepted according to the size information, and sends back a 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) response code. CLIENT SERVER | | | CON [MID=1234], Put, /options, 1/0/128, Size: 5000 ----> | | | | <------ ACK [MID=1234], 4.13 Request Entity Too Large | | | Figure 2: Size Option in a Put request 5. Security Considerations This presents no security considerations beyond those in section 10 of the base CoAP specification [I-D.ietf-core-coap] and in section 5 of the block specification [I-D.ietf-core-block]. 6. IANA Considerations The IANA is requested to add the following Option Number entry. +--------+---------------+----------------+ | Number | Name | Reference | +--------+---------------+----------------+ | 12 | Size | Section 2 | +--------+---------------+----------------+ 7. Acknowledgements The authors of this draft would like to thank the participants of the email discussion on this issue. Thanks to BertGreevenboschGreevenbosch, Charles Palmer and Carsten Bormann for the detailed reviews anddiscussions.suggestions. 8. Normative References [I-D.ietf-core-block]Shelby, Z. and C.Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Blockwise transfers in CoAP",draft-ietf-core-block-02draft-ietf-core-block-03 (work in progress),MarchMay 2011. [I-D.ietf-core-coap] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",draft-ietf-core-coap-05draft-ietf-core-coap-06 (work in progress),MarchMay 2011. [I-D.ietf-core-link-format] Shelby, Z., "CoRE Link Format",draft-ietf-core-link-format-03draft-ietf-core-link-format-04 (work in progress),MarchMay 2011. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Authors' Addresses Kepeng Li Huawei Technologies Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129 P. R. China Phone: +86-755-28974289 Email: likepeng@huawei.com Linyi Tian Huawei Technologies Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129 P. R. China Phone: +86-755-28978078 Email: tianlinyi@huawei.com Barry Leiba Huawei Technologies Phone: +1 646 827 0648 Email: barryleiba@computer.org URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/