idnits 2.17.1 draft-ma-core-dhcp-pd-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (Mar 2012) is 4417 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-becker-core-coap-sms-gprs-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-core-coap-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CoRE Working Group Y. Ma 3 Internet-Draft X. He 4 Intended status: Informational Hitachi (China) Research and 5 Expires: September 2, 2012 Development Corporation 6 Z. Cao 7 China Mobile 8 Mar 2012 10 dhcp option for CoAP Proxy Discovery 11 draft-ma-core-dhcp-pd-01 13 Abstract 15 CoAP utilizes DNS to discovery the IP address of the CoAP server. 16 However DNS is heavy for the most resource constrained end-points. 17 In this case the assistance from CoAP proxy or research directory 18 (RD) is needed for CoAP transaction. This specification proposes to 19 define one new dhcp option for proxy/RD discovery for the most 20 resource constrained end-points. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2012. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. dhcp option for proxy discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 1. Introduction 66 CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] is a RESTful protocol designed for 67 constrained devices. The ultimate goal of CoAP is to enable the "Web 68 of Things" concept, which connects the smart sensor network with the 69 global internet. 71 CoAP utilizes DNS for CoAP server IP address discovery. However in 72 some circumstances, DNS is heavy to be implemented in the resource 73 constrained nodes. In this case the assistance from CoAP proxy is 74 needed for CoAP transaction. 76 Also in many M2M scenarios, direct discovery of resources is not 77 practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where 78 multicast traffic is inefficient. These problems can be solved by 79 employing an entity called a Resource Directory 80 (RD)[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory], which hosts descriptions of 81 resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be performed for 82 those resources . 84 Before the CoAP sensor makes use of the CoAP proxy or RD, it must 85 know the location of the proxy or RD. There can be multiple ways to 86 discover the proxy's location, including both static and dynamic 87 methods. Static configuration is a straightforward way for the 88 client to access the server. However, in many situations, static 89 configuration is not enough to meet the requirements. 91 In another hand, although CoAP is assumed to be running over IPv6, 92 there are various approaches to implement it over other protocols, 93 SMS and GRPS for example [I-D.li-core-coap-over-sms] 94 [I-D.becker-core-coap-sms-gprs]. There are also scenarios where IPv4 95 is used as the lower layer transport for CoAP. In such case the 96 dynamic configuration method based on IPv4 protocol suite is 97 necessary. 99 1.1. Conventions used in this document 101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT", 102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 103 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] 105 2. dhcp option for proxy discovery 107 dhcp [RFC2131] provides dynamic methods to deliver configuration 108 information to the end node. dhcp options [RFC2132] are defined to 109 specify server information. This document specifies one new dhcp 110 option for CoAP proxy/rd discovery. 112 The CoAP proxy/rd option specifies a list of CoAP proxy or Research 113 Directory servers available to the client. Servers SHOULD be listed 114 in order of preference. 116 The code for the name server option is x. The minimum length for 117 this option is 4 octets, and the length MUST always be a multiple of 118 4. 120 Code Len Address 1 Address 2 121 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- 122 | x | n | a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a1 | a2 | ... 123 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- 125 CoAP proxy/rd option 127 3. Security Considerations 129 TBD. 131 4. IANA Considerations 133 This document needs to register one new dhcp option number at IANA. 135 5. Normative References 137 [I-D.becker-core-coap-sms-gprs] 138 Becker, M., Li, K., Kuladinithi, K., and T. Poetsch, 139 "Transport of CoAP over SMS, USSD and GPRS", 140 draft-becker-core-coap-sms-gprs-01 (work in progress), 141 March 2012. 143 [I-D.ietf-core-coap] 144 Frank, B., Bormann, C., Hartke, K., and Z. Shelby, 145 "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", 146 draft-ietf-core-coap-08 (work in progress), October 2011. 148 [I-D.li-core-coap-over-sms] 149 Li, K., "CoAP Over SMS", draft-li-core-coap-over-sms-00 150 (work in progress), October 2011. 152 [I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory] 153 Krco, S. and Z. Shelby, "CoRE Resource Directory", 154 draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-02 (work in 155 progress), October 2011. 157 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 158 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 160 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", 161 RFC 2131, March 1997. 163 [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 164 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 166 Authors' Addresses 168 Yuanchen Ma 169 Hitachi (China) Research and Development Corporation 170 301, Tower C North, Raycom, 2 Kexuyuan Nanlu, Haidian District 171 Beijing 100190 172 China 174 Email: ycma@hitachi.cn 176 Xuan He 177 Hitachi (China) Research and Development Corporation 178 301, Tower C North, Raycom, 2 Kexuyuan Nanlu, Haidian District 179 Beijing 100190 180 China 182 Email: xhe@hitachi.cn 184 Zhen Cao 185 China Mobile 186 Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xuanwu District 187 Beijing 100053 188 China 190 Email: zehn.cao@gmail.com