One document matched: draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-07.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-06.txt
CoRE Working Group A. Rahman, Ed.
Internet-Draft InterDigital Communications, LLC
Intended status: Informational E.O. Dijk, Ed.
Expires: November 08, 2013 Philips Research
May 07, 2013
Group Communication for CoAP
draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-07
Abstract
CoAP is a RESTful transfer protocol for constrained devices and
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 document provides guidance for how the CoAP protocol
should be used in a group communication context. An approach for
using CoAP on top of IP multicast is detailed for both constrained
and un-constrained networks. Also, various use cases and
corresponding protocol flows are provided to illustrate important
concepts. Finally, guidance is provided for deployment in various
network topologies.
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 November 08, 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
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
(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. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Multicast Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Group Definition and Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Port and URI Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Group Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Group Member Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Configuring Group Membership In Endpoints . . . . . . . . 7
3.7. Multicast Request Acceptance and Response Suppression . . 9
3.8. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9. Proxy Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.10. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Use Cases and Corresponding Protocol Flows . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Network Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Discovery of Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Lighting Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Lighting Control in MLD Enabled Network . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6. Commissioning the Network Based On Resource Directory . . 22
5. Deployment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. Target Network Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2. Advertising Membership of Multicast Groups . . . . . . . 23
5.2.1. Using the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol 24
5.2.2. Using the RPL Routing Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2.3. Using the MPL Forwarding Protocol . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. 6LoWPAN-Specific Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1. Security Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2. Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3. Threat Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.1. WiFi Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.2. 6LoWPAN Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.3. Future Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. New 'core.gp' Resource Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
7.2. New 'coap-group+json' Internet Media Type . . . . . . . . 27
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Conventions and Terminology
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
[RFC2119].
These key words are used to establish a set of best practices for
CoAP group communication. An implementation of CoAP group
communication MAY implement these guidelines; an implementation
claiming compliance to this document MUST implement the set.
This document assumes readers are familiar with the terms and
concepts that are used in [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. In addition, this
document defines the following terminology:
Group Communication
A source node sends a single message which is delivered to
multiple destination nodes, where all destinations are identified
to belong to a specific group. The source node itself may be part
of the group. The underlying mechanism for group communication is
assumed to be multicast based. The network involved may be a
constrained network such as a low-power, lossy network.
Multicast
Sending a message to multiple destination nodes with one network
invocation. There are various options to implement multicast
including layer 2 (Media Access Control) and layer 3 (IP)
mechanisms.
IP Multicast
A specific multicast solution based on the use of IP multicast
addresses as defined in "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast
Address Assignments" [RFC5771] and "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture" [RFC4291].
Low power and Lossy Network (LLN)
A type of constrained IP network where devices are interconnected
by a variety of low-power and lossy links (such as IEEE 802.15.4,
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
Bluetooth LE, DECT, DECT ULE) or lossy links (such as IEEE P1901.2
power-line communication).
2. Introduction
2.1. Background
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is an application
protocol (analogous to HTTP) for resource constrained devices
operating in an IP network [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. Constrained devices
can be large in number, but are often highly correlated to each other
(e.g. by type or location). For example, all the light switches in
a building may belong to one group and all the thermostats may belong
to another group. Groups may be pre-configured before deployment or
dynamically formed during operation. If information needs to be sent
to or received from a group of devices, group communication
mechanisms can improve efficiency and latency of communication and
reduce bandwidth requirements for a given application. HTTP does not
support any equivalent functionality to CoAP group communication.
2.2. Scope
Group communication involves sending a CoAP Request as an IP
Multicast message and handling the potential multitude of (unicast)
CoAP Responses. The normative protocol aspects of running CoAP on
top of IP Multicast and processing the responses are given in
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]. The main contribution of this document lies in
providing additional guidance for key group communication features.
Among the topics covered are group definition, group resource
manipulation, and group configuration. Also, proxy operation and
minimizing congestion scenarios for group communication is discussed.
Finally, specific use case behavior and deployment guidelines are
outlined for CoAP group communication.
3. Protocol Considerations
3.1. IP Multicast Background
IP Multicast protocols have been evolving for decades, resulting in
proposed standards such as Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC4601]. Yet, due to various technical and business
reasons, IP Multicast is not widely deployed on the general Internet.
However, IP Multicast is very popular in specific deployments such as
in enterprise networks (e.g. for video conferencing), smart home
networks (e.g. UPnP) and carrier IPTV deployments. The packet
economy and minimal host complexity of IP multicast make it
attractive for group communication in constrained environments.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
To achieve IP multicast beyond a subnet, an IP multicast routing or
forwarding protocol needs to be active on IP routers. An examples of
a routing protocol specifically for LLNs is RPL (Section 12 of
[RFC6550]) and an example of a forwarding protocol for LLNs is MPL
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]. PIM-SM [RFC4601] is often used for
multicast routing in un-constrained networks.
IP multicast can also be run in a Link-Local (LL) scope. This means
that there is no routing involved and an IP multicast message is only
received over the link on which it was sent.
For a complete IP multicast solution, in addition to a routing/
forwarding protocol, a so-called "listener" protocol is needed for
the devices to subscribe to groups (see Section 5.2).
3.2. Group Definition and Naming
A group is defined as a set of CoAP endpoints, where each endpoint is
configured to receive a multicast CoAP request that is sent to the
group's associated IP multicast address. An endpoint MAY be a member
of multiple groups. Group membership of an endpoint MAY dynamically
change over time.
For group communication, the Group URI will be the CoAP request URI.
A Group URI has the scheme 'coap' and includes in the authority part
either a group IP multicast address plus optional port number or a
hostname plus optional port number that can be resolved to the group
IP multicast address (e.g., a Group Name or Group FQDN). Group URIs
follow the CoAP URI syntax [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. It is recommended
for sending nodes to use the IP multicast address literal in the
authority for the Group URI as the default.
If a Group FQDN is used, it can be uniquely mapped to a site-local or
global IP multicast address via DNS resolution (if supported). Some
examples of hierarchical Group FQDN naming (and scoping) for a
building control application are shown below
([I-D.vanderstok-core-dna]):
URI authority Targeted group
all.bldg6.example.com "all nodes in building 6"
all.west.bldg6.example.com "all nodes in west wing, building 6"
all.floor1.west.bldg6.examp... "all nodes in floor 1, west wing,
building 6"
all.bu036.floor1.west.bldg6... "all nodes in office bu036, floor1,
west wing, building 6"
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
Similarly, if supported, reverse mapping (from IP multicast address
to Group FQDN) is possible using the reverse DNS resolution technique
([I-D.vanderstok-core-dna]).
3.3. Port and URI Configuration
A CoAP group member listens for CoAP messages on the group's IP
multicast address, on a specified UDP port. Note that the default
UDP port is the CoAP default port 5683 but a non-default UDP port MAY
be specified for the group; in which case implementers MUST ensure
that all group members are configured to use this same port.
Multicast based group communication will not work if there diversity
in the authority port (i.e. a diversity of dynamic port addresses
across the group) or if the resources are located at different paths
on different endpoints. Therefore, some measures must be present to
ensure uniformity in port number and resource names/locations within
a group. All CoAP multicast requests MUST be sent using the port
number as follows:
1. A pre-configured port number, if available. The pre-
configuration mechanism MUST ensure that the same port number is
pre-configured across all endpoints in a group and across all
CoAP clients performing the group requests.
2. If the client is configured to use service discovery including
port discovery, it uses a port number obtained via a service
discovery lookup operation as a valid CoAP port for the targeted
CoAP multicast group.
3. Otherwise use the default CoAP UDP port.
All CoAP multicast requests SHOULD operate on URI paths ("links") as
follows:
1. Pre-configured URI paths, if available. The pre-configuration
mechanism MUST ensure that these URIs are pre-configured across
all CoAP servers in a group and all CoAP clients performing the
group requests.
2. If the client is configured to use default CoRE resource
discovery, it uses URI paths retrieved from a "/.well-known/core"
lookup on a group member. The URI paths the client will use MUST
be known to be available also in all other endpoints in the
group. The URI path configuration mechanism on servers MUST
ensure that these URIs (identified as being supported by the
group) are configured on all group endpoints.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
3. If the client is configured to use another form of service
discovery, it uses URI paths from an equivalent service discovery
lookup which returns the resources supported by all group
members.
3.4. Group Methods
Group communication SHALL only be used for idempotent methods (i.e.
CoAP GET, PUT, and DELETE). The CoAP messages that are sent via
multicast SHALL be Non-Confirmable.
A unicast response per server MAY be sent back to answer the group
request (e.g. response "2.05 Content" to a group GET request) taking
into account the congestion control rules defined in Section 3.8.
The unicast responses received may be a mixture of success (e.g.
2.05 Content) and failure (e.g. 4.04 Not Found) codes depending on
the individual server processing result.
Group communication SHALL NOT be used for non-idempotent methods
(i.e. CoAP POST). This is because not all group members are
guaranteed to receive the multicast request, and the sender cannot
readily find out which group members did not receive it.
3.5. Group Member Discovery
CoAP defines a resource discovery capability [RFC6690], but does not
specify how to discover groups (e.g. find a group to join or send a
multicast message to) or how to discover members of a group (e.g. to
address selected group members by unicast). A simple ad-hoc method
to discover members of a CoAP group would be to send a multicast
"CoAP ping" [I-D.ietf-core-coap]. The collected responses to the
ping would then give an indication of the group members.
3.6. Configuring Group Membership In Endpoints
The group membership of a CoAP endpoint may be configured in one of
the following ways. First, the group membership may be pre-
configured before node deployment. Second, a node may be programmed
to discover (query) its group membership during operation using a
specific service discovery means. Third, it may be configured during
operation by another node (e.g. a commissioning device).
In the first case, the pre-configured group information may be either
directly a IP multicast address, or a hostname which is during
operation resolved to a IP multicast address by the endpoint using
DNS.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
For the second case, a CoAP endpoint may look up its group membership
using techniques such as DNS-SD and Resource Directory
[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory]. The latter is detailed more in
section Section 4.6.
In the third case, typical in scenarios such as building control, a
commissioning tool determines to which group a sensor or actuator
node belongs, and writes this information to the node, which can
subsequently join the correct IP multicast group on its network
interface. The information written may again be a IP multicast
address or a hostname.
To achieve better interoperability between endpoints from different
manufacturers, an OPTIONAL default RESTful interface for configuring
CoAP endpoints with relevant group information is described here.
This interface provides a solution for the third case mentioned
above. To access this interface a client MUST use unicast methods
(GET/PUT/POST/DELETE) only as it is a method of configuring group
information in individual endpoints. Using multicast operations in
this situation may lead to unexpected (possibly circular) behavior in
the network.
CoAP endpoints implementing this optional mechanism MUST support at
least one discoverable "Group Configuration" resource of resource
type (rt) [RFC6690] "core.gp" where "gp" is shorthand for "group".
This resource is used by an authorized controller to query/manage
group membership of a CoAP server.
The resource of type "core.gp" has a JSON content format. A
(unicast) GET on this resource returns a JSON array of group objects,
each group object formatted as shown below:
Req: GET /gp
Res: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/coap-group+json)
[ { "n": "Room-A-Lights.floor1.west.bldg6.example.com",
"ip": "ff15::4200:f7fe:ed37:14ca" }
]
where the OPTIONAL "n" key/value pair defines the Group name as FQDN
and the OPTIONAL "ip" key/value pair defines the associated IP
multicast address. If the IP multicast address is given, this takes
priority. The Group name is just informational in this case. If
only a Group name is given, the CoAP endpoint has to do DNS
resolution (if supported) to obtain the IP multicast address.
Note that each group object in the JSON array represents a single IP
multicast group for the endpoint. If there are multiple elements in
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
the array then the endpoint is a member of multiple IP multicast
groups.
A CoAP endpoint can be added to another group by a (unicast) POST on
the resource with a single JSON group object, which updates the
existing resource by adding the group object to the existing ones:
Req: POST /gp (Content-Format: application/coap-group+json)
{ "n": "floor1.west.bldg6.example.com",
"ip": "ff15::4200:f7fe:ed37:14cb" }
Res: 2.04 Changed
A (unicast) PUT with as payload an array of JSON group objects will
replace all current group memberships with the new ones as defined in
the payload. After a change effected on the "core.gp" type resource,
the endpoint MUST effect registration/de-registration from
corresponding IP multicast groups as soon as possible. A (unicast)
DELETE will delete all group memberships, and the endpoint MUST
effect de-registration from corresponding IP multicast groups as soon
as possible.
Any (unicast) operation to change a CoAP endpoint group membership
configuration (i.e. PUT/POST/DELETE) MUST use DTLS-secured CoAP
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]. Thus only authorized clients will be allowed
by a server to configure the server's (endpoint) group membership.
3.7. Multicast Request Acceptance and Response Suppression
CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] and CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] define
normative behaviors for:
1. Multicast request acceptance - in which cases a request is
accepted and executed, and when not.
2. Multicast response suppression - in which cases the response of
an executed request is returned to the requesting endpoint, and
when not.
This section first summarizes these normative behaviors and then
presents additional guidelines for response suppression. Also a
number of multicast example applications are given to illustrate the
overall approach.
To apply any rules for request and/or response suppression, the IP
stack interface of a CoAP server must be able to indicate for an
incoming request that the destination address of the request was
multicast.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
For multicast request acceptance, the behaviors are:
o A server SHOULD NOT accept a multicast request that cannot be
"authenticated" in some way (cryptographically or by some
multicast boundary limiting the potential sources)
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]. See Section 6.3 for examples of multicast
boundary limiting methods.
o A server SHOULD NOT accept a multicast discovery request with a
query string (as defined in CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]) if
filtering ([RFC6690]) is not supported by the server.
o A server SHOULD NOT accept a multicast request that acts on a
specific resource for which multicast support is not required.
(Note that for discovery resource "/.well-known/core" multicast
support is always required. Implementers are advised to disable
multicast support by default on any other resource, until
explicitly enabled by an application.)
o Otherwise accept the multicast request.
For multicast response suppression, the behaviors are:
o A server SHOULD NOT respond to a multicast discovery request if
the filter specified by the request's query string does not match.
o A server MAY choose not to respond to a multicast request, if
there's nothing useful to respond (e.g. error or empty response).
o If the IP stack interface cannot indicate that an incoming message
was multicast, then the server SHOULD NOT respond for incoming
messages for selected resources which are known (through
application knowledge) to be used for multicast requests.
o Otherwise respond to the multicast request.
The above response suppression behaviors are complemented by the
following guidelines. CoAP servers should implement configurable
response suppression, enabling at least the following per resource:
o Suppression of all 2.xx success responses;
o Suppression of all 4.xx client errors;
o Suppression of all 5.xx server errors;
o Suppression of all 2.05 responses with empty payload.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
A number of group communication example applications are described
below illustrating how to make use of response suppression:
o CoAP resource discovery: Suppress 2.05 responses with empty
payload and all 4.xx and 5.xx errors.
o Lighting control: Suppress all 2.xx responses after a lighting
change command.
o Update group configuration data using multicast PUT: No
suppression at all. Use collected responses to identify which
group members did not receive the new configuration; then attempt
using CoAP CON unicast to update those group members.
o Multicast firmware update by sending blocks of data: Suppress all
2.xx and 5.xx responses. After having sent all multicast blocks,
the client checks each endpoint by unicast to identify which
blocks are still missing in each endpoint.
o Conditional reporting for a group (e.g. sensors) based on a URI
query: Suppress all 2.05 responses with empty payload (i.e. if a
query produces no matching results).
3.8. Congestion Control
Multicast CoAP requests may result in a multitude of replies from
different nodes, potentially causing congestion. Therefore both the
sending of multicast requests and sending unicast CoAP responses to
multicast requests should be conservatively controlled.
CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] reduces multicast-specific congestion risks
through the following measures:
o A server MAY choose not to respond to a multicast request if
there's nothing useful to respond (e.g. error or empty response).
See Section 3.7 for more detailed guidelines on response
suppression.
o A server SHOULD limit the support for multicast requests to
specific resources where multicast operation is required.
o A multicast request MUST be Non-Confirmable.
o A response to a multicast request SHOULD be Non-Confirmable
(Section 5.2.3).
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o A server does not respond immediately to a multicast request, but
SHOULD first wait for a time that is randomly picked within a
predetermined time interval called the Leisure.
o A server SHOULD NOT accept multicast requests that can not be
authenticated in some way. See Section 3.7 for more details on
request suppression and multicast source authentication.
Additional guidelines to reduce congestion risks are:
o A server in an LLN should only support multicast GET for resources
that are small, e.g. the payload of the response fits into a
single link-layer frame.
o A server can minimize the payload length in response to a
multicast GET on "/.well-known/core" by using hierarchy in
arranging link descriptions for the response. An example of this
is given in Section 5 of [RFC6690].
o Alternatively a server can also minimize the payload length of a
response to a multicast GET (e.g. on "/.well-known/core") using
CoAP blockwise transfers [I-D.ietf-core-block], returning only a
first block of the link format description.
o A client should always aim to use IP multicast with link-local
scope if possible. If this is not possible, then site-local scope
IP multicast should be considered. If this is not possible, then
global scope IP multicast should be considered as a last resort
only.
3.9. Proxy Operation
CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] allows a client to request a forward-proxy
to process its CoAP request. For this purpose the client either
specifies the request URI as a string in the Proxy-URI option, or it
specifies the Proxy-Scheme option with the URI constructed from the
usual Uri-* options. This approach works well for unicast requests.
However, there are certain issues and limitations of processing the
(unicast) responses to a group communication request made in this
manner through a proxy. Specifically, if a proxy would apply
aggregation of responses in such a case:
o Aggregation of (unicast) responses to a group communication
request in a proxy is difficult. This is because the proxy does
not know how many members there are in the group or how many group
members will actually respond.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o There is no default format defined in CoAP for aggregation of
multiple responses into a single response.
But if a proxy would follow the specification for a CoAP Proxy
[I-D.ietf-core-coap], the proxy would simply forward all the
individual (unicast) responses to a group communication request to
the client (i.e. no aggregation), there are also issues:
o The client may be confused as it may not have known that the
Proxy-URI contained a multicast target. That is, the client may
be expecting only one (unicast) response but instead receives
multiple (unicast) responses potentially leading to fault
conditions in the application or CoAP stack.
o Each individual CoAP response will appear to originate (IP Source
address) from the CoAP Proxy, and not from the server that
produced the response. This makes it impossible for the client to
identify the server that produced each response.
Due to above issues, a guideline is defined here that a CoAP Proxy
SHOULD NOT support processing a multicast CoAP request but rather
return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such case. The exception
case here (i.e. to process it) is allowed under following
conditions:
o The CoAP Proxy MUST be explicitly configured (whitelist) to allow
proxied multicast requests by specific client(s).
o The proxy SHOULD return individual (unicast) CoAP responses to the
client, i.e. not aggregated. (This condition MAY be removed once
an aggregation format is standardized.)
o It MUST be known to the person/entity doing the configuration of
the proxy, or verified in some way, that the client configured in
the whitelist supports receiving multiple responses to a proxied
unicast CoAP request.
3.10. Exceptions
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
Group communication using IP multicast offers improved network
efficiency and latency amongst other benefits. However, group
communication may not always be possible to implement in a given
network. The primary reason for this will be if IP multicast is not
supported in the network. For example, in a LLN, if the RPL protocol
is used for routing multicast packets and RPL routers operate in
"Non-storing mode" [RFC6550] there will be no IP multicast routing in
that network beyond link-local scope. This means that any CoAP group
communication above link-local scope will not be supported in that
network.
4. Use Cases and Corresponding Protocol Flows
4.1. Introduction
The use of CoAP group communication is shown in the context of the
following two use cases and corresponding protocol flows:
o Discovery of Resource Directory (RD,
[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory]): discovering the local CoAP
RD which contains links (URIs) to resources stored on other CoAP
servers [RFC6690].
o Lighting Control: synchronous operation of a group of
IPv6-connected lights (e.g., 6LoWPAN [RFC4944] lights).
4.2. Network Configuration
To illustrate the use cases we define two network configurations.
Both are based on the topology as shown in Figure 1. The two
configurations using this topology are:
1. Subnets are 6LoWPAN networks; the routers Rtr-1 and Rtr-2 are
6LoWPAN Border Routers (6LBRs, [RFC6775]).
2. Subnets are Ethernet links; the routers Rtr-1 and Rtr-2 are
multicast-capable Ethernet routers.
Both configurations are further specified by the following:
o A large room (Room-A) with three lights (Light-1, Light-2,
Light-3) controlled by a Light Switch. The devices are organized
into two subnets. In reality, there could be more lights (up to
several hundreds) but these are not shown for clarity.
o Light-1 and the Light Switch are connected to a router (Rtr-1).
o Light-2 and the Light-3 are connected to another router (Rtr-2).
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o The routers are connected to an IPv6 network backbone which is
also multicast enabled. In the general case, this means the
network backbone and Rtr-1/Rtr-2 support a PIM based multicast
routing protocol, and MLD for forming groups. In a limited case,
if the network backbone is one link, then the routers only have to
support MLD-snooping (Appendix A) for the following use cases to
work.
o A CoAP RD is connected to the network backbone.
o The DNS server is optional. If the server is there (connected to
the network backbone) then certain DNS based features are
available (e.g. DNS resolution of URI to IP multicast address).
If the DNS server is not there, then different manual provisioning
of the network is required (e.g. IP multicast addresses are hard-
coded into devices).
o A Controller (client) is connected to the backbone, which is able
to control various building functions including lighting.
Network
Backbone
################################################ |
# ********************** Room-A # |
# ** Subnet-1 ** # |
# * ** # |
# * +----------+ * # |
# * | Light |-------+ * # |
# * | Switch | | * # |
# * +----------+ +---------+ * # |
# * | Rtr-1 |-----------------------------+
# * +---------+ * # |
# * +----------+ | * # |
# * | Light-1 |--------+ * # |
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
# * +----------+ * # |
# * * # |
# ** ** # |
# ********************** # |
# # |
# ********************** # |
# ** Subnet-2 ** # |
# * ** # |
# * +----------+ * # |
# * | Light-2 |-------+ * # |
# * | | | * # |
# * +----------+ +---------+ * # |
# * | Rtr-2 |-----------------------------+
# * +---------+ * # |
# * +----------+ | * # |
# * | Light-3 |--------+ * # |
# * +----------+ * # +------------+ |
# * * # | Controller |--+
# ** ** # | Client | |
# ********************** # +------------+ |
################################################ |
|
+------------+ |
| CoAP | |
| Resource |-----------------+
| Directory | |
+------------+ |
+------------+ |
| DNS Server | |
| (Optional) |-----------------+
+------------+
Figure 1: Network Topology of a Large Room (Room-A)
4.3. Discovery of Resource Directory
The protocol flow for discovery of the CoAP RD for the given network
(of Figure 1) is shown in Figure 2:
o The fixture for Light-2 is installed and powered on for the first
time.
o Light-2 will then search for the local CoAP RD by sending out a
GET request (with the "/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd" request URI)
to the site-local "All CoAP Nodes" multicast address.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o This multicast message will then go to each node in subnet-2.
Rtr-2 will then forward into to the Network Backbone where it will
be received by the CoAP RD. All other nodes in subnet-2 will
ignore the multicast GET because it is qualified by the query
string "?rt=core.rd" (which indicates it should only be processed
by the endpoint if it is a RD).
o The CoAP RD will then send back a unicast response containing the
requested content.
o Note that the flow is shown only for Light-2 for clarity. Similar
flows will happen for Light-1, Light-3 and the Light Switch when
they are first powered on.
The CoAP RD may also be discovered by other means such as by assuming
a default location (e.g. on a 6LBR), using DHCP, anycast address,
etc. However, these approaches do not invoke CoAP group
communication so are not further discussed here.
For other discovery use cases such as discovering local CoAP servers,
services or resources group communication can be used in a similar
fashion as in the above use case. Both Link-Local (LL) and site-
local discovery are possible this way.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
Light CoAP
Light-1 Light-2 Light-3 Switch Rtr-1 Rtr-2 RD
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
********************************** | | |
* Light-2 is installed * | | |
* and powers on for first time * | | |
********************************** | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | COAP NON Mcast(GET | |
| | /.well-known/core?rt=core.rd) | |
| |--------->-------------------------------->| |
| | | | | |--------->|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | COAP NON (2.05 Content | |
| | </rd>;rt="core.rd";ins="Primary") |<---------|
| |<------------------------------------------| |
| | | | | | |
Figure 2: Resource Directory Discovery via Multicast Message
4.4. Lighting Control
The protocol flow for a building automation lighting control scenario
for the network (Figure 1) in 6LoWPAN configuration is shown in
sequence in Figure 3 for the case that the CoAP servers in each Light
are configured to not generate a CoAP response to lighting control
CoAP multicast requests. (See section Section 3.7 for more details
on response suppression by a server.)
In addition, Figure 4 shows a protocol flow example for the case that
servers do respond to a lighting control multicast request with
(unicast) CoAP NON responses. There are two success responses and
one 5.00 error response. In this particular use case the Light
Switch does not check, based on the responses, that all Lights in the
group actually received the multicast request, because it is not
configured with an exhaustive list of IP addresses of all Lights
belonging to the group. However, based on received error responses
it could take additional action such as logging a fault or alerting
the user via its LCD display.
Reliability of CoAP multicast is not guaranteed. Therefore, one or
more lights in the group may not have received the CoAP control
request due to packet loss. In this use case there is no detection
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
nor correction of such situations: the application layer expects that
the multicast forwarding/routing will be of sufficient quality to
provide on average a very high probability of packet delivery to all
CoAP endpoints in a multicast group. An example protocol to
accomplish this is the MPL forwarding protocol for LLNs
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast].
We assume the following steps have already occurred before the
illustrated flows:
1. Startup phase: 6LoWPANs are formed. IPv6 addresses assigned to
all devices. The CoAP network is formed.
2. Network configuration (application-independent): 6LBRs are
configured with multicast address blocks to filter out or to pass
through to/from the 6LoWPAN.
3. Commissioning phase (application-related): The IP multicast
address of the group (Room-A-Lights) has been configured in all
the Lights and in the Light Switch.
4. As an alternative to the previous step, when a DNS server is
available, the Light Switch and/or the Lights have been
configured with a group hostname which each nodes resolves to the
above IP multicast address of the group.
Note for the Commissioning phase: the switch's software supports
sending unicast, multicast or proxied unicast/multicast CoAP
requests, including processing of the multiple responses that may be
generated by a multicast CoAP request.
Light Network
Light-1 Light-2 Light-3 Switch Rtr-1 Rtr-2 Backbone
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | *********************** | |
| | * User flips on * | |
| | * light switch to * | |
| | * turn on all the * | |
| | * lights in Room A * | |
| | *********************** | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | COAP NON Mcast(PUT, | |
| | | Payload=lights ON) | |
|<-------------------------------+--------->| | |
ON | | | |-------------------->|
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
| | | | | |<---------|
| |<---------|<-------------------------------| |
| ON ON | | | |
^ ^ ^ | | | |
*********************** | | | |
* Lights in Room-A * | | | |
* turn on (nearly * | | | |
* simultaneously) * | | | |
*********************** | | | |
| | | | | | |
Figure 3: Light Switch Sends Multicast Control Message
Light Network
Light-1 Light-2 Light-3 Switch Rtr-1 Rtr-2 Backbone
| | | | | | |
| COAP NON (2.04 Changed) | | | |
|------------------------------->| | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| COAP NON (2.04 Changed) | | |
| |------------------------------------------>| |
| | | | | |--------->|
| | | | |<--------------------|
| | | |<---------| | |
| | | | | | |
| | COAP NON (5.00 Internal Server Error) |
| | |------------------------------->| |
| | | | | |--------->|
| | | | |<--------------------|
| | | |<---------| | |
| | | | | | |
Figure 4: Lights (Optionally) Respond to Multicast CoAP Request
Another, but similar, lighting control use case is shown in Figure 5.
In this case a controller connected to the Network Backbone sends a
CoAP multicast request to turn on all lights in Room-A. Every Light
sends back a CoAP response to the Controller after being turned on.
Network
Light-1 Light-2 Light-3 Rtr-1 Rtr-2 Backbone Controller
| | | | | | |
| | | | | COAP NON Mcast(PUT,
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
| | | | | Payload=lights ON)
| | | | | |<-------|
| | | |<----------<---------| |
|<--------------------------------| | | |
ON | | | | | |
| |<----------<---------------------| | |
| ON ON | | | |
^ ^ ^ | | | |
*********************** | | | |
* Lights in Room-A * | | | |
* turn on (nearly * | | | |
* simultaneously) * | | | |
*********************** | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| COAP NON (2.04 Changed) | | | |
|-------------------------------->| | | |
| | | |-------------------->| |
| | COAP NON (2.04 Changed) | |------->|
| |-------------------------------->| | |
| | | | |--------->| |
| | | COAP NON (2.04 Changed) |------->|
| | |--------------------->| | |
| | | | |--------->| |
| | | | | |------->|
| | | | | | |
Figure 5: Controller On Backbone Sends Multicast Control Message
4.5. Lighting Control in MLD Enabled Network
The use case of previous section can also apply in networks where
nodes support the MLD protocol [RFC3810]. The Lights then take on
the role of MLDv2 listener and the routers (Rtr-1, Rtr-2) are MLDv2
Routers. In the Ethernet based network configuration, MLD may be
available on all involved network interfaces. Use of MLD in the
6LoWPAN based configuration is also possible, but requires MLD
support in all nodes in the 6LoWPAN which is usually not implemented
in many deployments.
The resulting protocol flow is shown in Figure 6. This flow is
executed after the commissioning phase, as soon as Lights are
configured with a group address to listen to. The (unicast) MLD
Reports may require periodic refresh activity as specified by the MLD
protocol. In the figure, LL denotes Link Local communication.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
After the shown sequence of MLD Report messages has been executed,
both Rtr-1 and Rtr-2 are automatically configured to forward
multicast traffic destined to Room-A-Lights onto their connected
subnet. Hence, no manual Network Configuration of routers, as
previously indicated in Section 4.4, is needed anymore.
Light Network
Light-1 Light-2 Light-3 Switch Rtr-1 Rtr-2 Backbone
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| MLD Report: Join | | | | |
| Group (Room-A-Lights) | | | |
|---LL------------------------------------->| | |
| | | | |MLD Report: Join |
| | | | |Group (Room-A-Lights)|
| | | | |---LL---->----LL---->|
| | | | | | |
| | MLD Report: Join | | | |
| | Group (Room-A-Lights) | | |
| |---LL------------------------------------->| |
| | | | | | |
| | | MLD Report: Join | | |
| | | Group (Room-A-Lights) | |
| | |---LL-------------------------->| |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |MLD Report: Join |
| | | | |Group (Room-A-Lights)|
| | | | |<--LL-----+---LL---->|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Figure 6: Joining Lighting Groups Using MLD
4.6. Commissioning the Network Based On Resource Directory
This section outlines how devices in the lighting use case (both
Switches and Lights) can be commissioned, making use of Resource
Directory [I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory] and its group
configuration feature.
Once the Resource Directory (RD) is discovered, the Switches and
Lights need to be discovered and their groups need to be defined.
For the commissioning of these devices, a commissioning tool can be
used that defines the entries in the RD. The commissioning tool has
the authority to change the contents of the RD and the nodes. DTLS
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
based security is used by the commissioning tool to modify
operational data in RD, Switches and Lights.
In our particular use case, a group of three lights is defined with
one multicast address and hostname
Room-A-Lights.floor1.west.bldg6.example.com. The commissioning
device has a list of the three lights and the associated multicast
address. For each light in the list the tool learns the IP address
of the light and instructs the RD with 3 POST commands to store the
end-points associated with the three lights as prescribed by RD.
Finally the commissioning device defines the group in the RD to
contain these three end-points. Also the commissioning tool writes
the MC address in the Lights with e.g. the POST /gp command
discussed in Section 3.6.
The light switch can discover the group in RD and learn the MC
address of the group. The light switch will use this address to send
MC commands to the members of the group. When the message arrives
the Lights should recognize the MC address and accept the message.
5. Deployment Guidelines
This section provides guidelines how an IP Multicast based solution
for CoAP group communication can be deployed in various network
configurations.
5.1. Target Network Topologies
CoAP group communication can be deployed in various network
topologies. First, the target network may be a regular IP network,
or a LLN such as a 6LoWPAN network, or consist of mixed constrained/
unconstrained network segments. Second, it may be a single subnet
only or multi-subnet; e.g. multiple 6LoWPAN networks joined by a
single backbone LAN. Third, a wireless network segment may have all
nodes reachable in a single IP hop, or it may require multiple IP
hops for some pairs of nodes to reach each other.
Each topology may pose different requirements on the configuration of
routers and protocol(s), in order to enable efficient CoAP group
communication.
5.2. Advertising Membership of Multicast Groups
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
If a multicast routing/forwarding protocol is used in a network,
server nodes that intend to receive CoAP multicast requests generally
require a method to advertise the specific IP multicast address(es)
they want to receive, i.e. a method to join specific IP multicast
groups. This section identifies the ways in which this can be
accomplished.
5.2.1. Using the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol
CoAP nodes that are IP hosts (i.e. not IP routers) are generally
unaware of the specific multicast routing/forwarding protocol being
used. When such a host needs to join a specific (CoAP) multicast
group, it usually requires a way to signal to multicast routers which
multicast traffic it wants to receive. For efficient multicast
routing (i.e. avoid always flooding IP multicast packets), routers
must know which hosts need to receive packets addressed to specific
IP multicast destinations.
The Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) protocol ([RFC3810],
Appendix A) is the standard IPv6 method to achieve this. [RFC6636]
discusses tuning of MLD for mobile and wireless networks. These
guidelines may be useful when implementing MLD in LLNs.
Alternatively, to avoid the use of MLD in LLN deployments, either all
nodes can be configured as multicast routers in an LLN, or a
multicast forwarding/flooding protocol can be used that forwards any
IP multicast packet to all forwarders (routers) in the subnet (LLN).
5.2.2. Using the RPL Routing Protocol
The RPL routing protocol [RFC6550] defines in Section 12 the
advertisement of IP multicast destinations using DAO messages. This
mechanism can be used by CoAP nodes (which are also RPL routers) to
advertise IP multicast group membership to other RPL routers. Then,
the RPL protocol can route multicast CoAP requests over multiple hops
to the correct CoAP servers.
This mechanism can be used as a means to convey IP multicast group
membership information to an edge router (e.g. 6LBR), in case the
edge router is also the root of the RPL DODAG. This could be useful
in LLN segments where MLD is not available and the edge router needs
to know what IP multicast traffic to pass through from the backbone
network into the LLN subnet.
5.2.3. Using the MPL Forwarding Protocol
The MPL forwarding protocol [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] can be used
in a predefined network domain for propagation of IP multicast
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
packets to all MPL routers, over multiple hops. MPL is designed to
work in LLN deployments. Due to its property of propagating all
(non-link-local) IP multicast packets to all MPL routers, there is in
principle no need for CoAP server nodes to advertise IP multicast
group membership assuming that any IP multicast source is also part
of the MPL domain.
5.3. 6LoWPAN-Specific Guidelines
To support multi-LoWPAN scenarios for CoAP group communication, it is
RECOMMENDED that a 6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR) will act in an MLD
Router role on the backbone link. If this is not possible then the
6LBR SHOULD be configured to act as an MLD Multicast Address Listener
and/or MLD Snooper (Appendix A) on the backbone link.
To avoid that backbone IP multicast traffic needlessly congests
6LoWPAN network segments, it is RECOMMENDED that a filtering means is
implemented to block IP multicast traffic from 6LoWPAN segments where
none of the 6LoWPAN nodes listen to this traffic. Possible means
are:
o Filtering in 6LBRs based on information from the routing protocol.
This allows a 6LBR to only forward multicast traffic onto the
LoWPAN, for which it is known that there exists at least one
listener on the LoWPAN.
o Filtering in 6LBRs based on MLD reports. Similar as previous but
based directly on MLD reports from 6LoWPAN nodes. This only works
in a single-IP-hop 6LoWPAN network, such as a mesh-under routing
network or a star topology network, because MLD relies on link-
local communication.
o Filtering in 6LBRs based on settings. Filtering tables with
blacklists/whitelists can be configured in the 6LBR by system
administration for all 6LBRs or configured on a per-6LBR basis.
o Filtering in router(s) or firewalls that provide access to
constrained network segments. For example, in an access router/
bridge that connects a regular intranet LAN to a building control
IPv6 backbone. This backbone connects multiple 6LoWPAN segments,
each segment connected via a 6LBR.
6. Security Considerations
This section describes the relevant security configuration for CoAP
group communication using IP multicast. The threats to CoAP group
communication are also identified and various approaches to mitigate
these threats are summarized.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
6.1. Security Configuration
As defined in [I-D.ietf-core-coap], CoAP group communication based on
IP multicast must use the following security modes:
o Group communication MUST operate in CoAP NoSec (No Security) mode.
o Group communication MUST NOT use "coaps" scheme. That is, all
group communication MUST use only "coap" scheme.
6.2. Threats
Essentially the above configuration means that there is no security
at the CoAP layer for group communication. This is due to the fact
that the current DTLS based approach for CoAP is exclusively unicast
oriented and does not support group security features such as group
key exchange and group authentication. As a direct consequence of
this, CoAP group communication is vulnerable to all attacks mentioned
in [I-D.ietf-core-coap] for IP multicast.
6.3. Threat Mitigation
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] identifies various threat mitigation techniques
for CoAP IP multicast. In addition to those guidelines, it is
recommended that for sensitive data or safety-critical control, a
combination of appropriate link-layer security and administrative
control of IP multicast boundaries should be used. Some examples are
given below.
6.3.1. WiFi Scenario
In a home automation scenario (using WiFi), the WiFi encryption
should be enabled to prevent rogue nodes from joining. Also, if MAC
address filtering at the WiFi Access Point is supported that should
also be enabled. The IP router should have the fire wall enabled to
isolate the home network from the rest of the Internet. In addition,
the domain of the IP multicast should be set to be either link-local
scope or site-local scope. Finally, if possible, devices should be
configured to accept only Source Specific Multicast (SSM) packets
(see [RFC4607]) from within the trusted home network. For example,
all lights in a particular room should only accept IP multicast
traffic originating from the master light switch in that room. In
this case, the Spoofed Source Address considerations of Section 7.4
of [RFC4607] should be heeded.
6.3.2. 6LoWPAN Scenario
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
In a building automation scenario, a particular room may have a
single 6LoWPAN topology with a single Edge Router (6LBR). Nodes on
the subnet can use link-layer encryption to prevent rogue nodes from
joining. The 6LBR can be configured so that it blocks any incoming
IP multicast traffic. Another example topology could be a multi-
subnet 6LoWPAN in a large conference room. In this case, the
backbone can implement port authentication (IEEE 802.1X) to ensure
only authorized devices can join the Ethernet backbone. The access
router to this secured segment can also be configured to block
incoming IP multicast traffic.
6.3.3. Future Evolution
In the future, to further mitigate the threats, the developing
approach for DTLS-based IP multicast security for CoAP networks (see
[I-D.keoh-tls-multicast-security]) or similar approaches should be
considered once they mature.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New 'core.gp' Resource Type
This memo registers a new resource type (rt) from the CoRE Parameters
Registry called 'core.gp' as per the process described in section 7.4
of [RFC6690].
Attribute Value: core.gp
Description: Optional Group Configuration resource. This resource is
used to query/manage the group membership of a CoAP server.
Reference: See Section 3.6.
7.2. New 'coap-group+json' Internet Media Type
This memo registers a new Internet Media Type for CoAP group
configuration resource called 'application/coap-group+json' (as per
[RFC4288]) . This registration also follows the specific guidance
from section 12.3 (last paragraph) of [I-D.ietf-core-coap].
Type name: application
Subtype name: coap-group+json
Required parameters: None
Optional parameters: None
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32.
JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is
written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is written in
UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding must be used.
If the client is aware that the server group configuration resource
is 8bit encoded (which is most efficient for a constrained device),
that encoding should be respected by the client (i.e. it should not
try to replace it by a binary encoded group configuration resource).
Security considerations:
Denial of Service attacks could be performed by constantly setting
the group configuration resource of a CoAP endpoint. This will cause
the endpoint to register (or de-register) from the related IP
multicast group. To prevent this it is mandatory that DTLS-secured
CoAP communication be used for setting the group configuration
resource. Thus only authorized clients will be allowed by a server
to configure its group membership.
Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: (This I-D when it becomes an RFC)
Applications that use this media type:
CoAP client and server implementations that wish to set/read the
group configuration resource via 'application/coap-group+json'
payload as described in Section 3.6.
Additional Information:
Magic number(s): None
File extension(s): *.json
Macintosh file type code(s): TEXT
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: None
Author: CoRE WG
Change controller: IETF
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Peter Bigot, Carsten Bormann, Anders Brandt, Angelo
Castellani, Guang Lu, Salvatore Loreto, Kerry Lynn, Dale Seed, Zach
Shelby, Peter van der Stok, and Juan Carlos Zuniga for their helpful
comments and discussions that have helped shape this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.
[RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for
IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771,
March 2010.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
[RFC6636] Asaeda, H., Liu, H., and Q. Wu, "Tuning the Behavior of
the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for Routers in Mobile
and Wireless Networks", RFC 6636, May 2012.
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, August 2012.
[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.
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-16
(work in progress), May 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-core-block]
Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Blockwise transfers in CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-block-11 (work in progress), March 2013.
[I-D.vanderstok-core-dna]
Stok, P., Lynn, K., and A. Brandt, "CoRE Discovery,
Naming, and Addressing", draft-vanderstok-core-dna-02
(work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]
Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
mcast-04 (work in progress), February 2013.
[I-D.keoh-tls-multicast-security]
Keoh, S., Kumar, S., and E. Dijk, "DTLS-based Multicast
Security for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs)", draft-
keoh-tls-multicast-security-00 (work in progress), October
2012.
[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory]
Shelby, Z., Krco, S., and C. Bormann, "CoRE Resource
Directory", draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-05 (work
in progress), February 2013.
Appendix A. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
In order to extend the scope of IP multicast beyond link-local scope,
an IP multicast routing or forwarding protocol has to be active in
routers on an LLN. To achieve efficient multicast routing (i.e.
avoid always flooding IP multicast packets), routers have to learn
which hosts need to receive packets addressed to specific IP
multicast destinations.
The Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) protocol [RFC3810] (or its
IPv4 pendant IGMP) is today the method of choice used by an (IP
multicast enabled) router to discover the presence of multicast
listeners on directly attached links, and to discover which multicast
addresses are of interest to those listening nodes. MLD was
specifically designed to cope with fairly dynamic situations in which
multicast listeners may join and leave at any time.
IGMP/MLD Snooping is a technique implemented in some corporate LAN
routing/switching devices. An MLD snooping switch listens to MLD
State Change Report messages from MLD listeners on attached links.
Based on this, the switch learns on what LAN segments there is
interest for what IP multicast traffic. If the switch receives at
some point an IP multicast packet, it uses the stored information to
decide onto which LAN segment(s) to send the packet. This improves
network efficiency compared to the regular behavior of forwarding
every incoming multicast packet onto all LAN segments. An MLD
snooping switch may also send out MLD Query messages (which is
normally done by a device in MLD Router role) if no MLD Router is
present.
[RFC6636] discusses optimal tuning of the parameters of MLD for
routers for mobile and wireless networks. These guidelines may be
useful when implementing MLD in LLNs.
Appendix B. Change Log
Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07:
o Added an IANA request (in section 7.2) for a dedicated content-
format (Internet Media type) for the group management JSON format
called 'application/coap-group+json' (#299).
o Clarified semantics (in section 3.6) of group management JSON
format (#300).
o Added details of IANA request (in section 7.1) for a new CORE
Resource Type called 'core.gp'.
o Clarified that DELETE method (in section 3.6) is also a valid
group management operation.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o Various editorial updates for improved readability.
Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06:
o Added a new section on commissioning flow when using discovery
services when end devices discover in which multicast group they
are allocated (#295).
o Added a new section on CoAP Proxy Operation (section 3.9) that
outlines the potential issues and limitations of doing CoAP
multicast requests via a CoAP Proxy (#274).
o Added use case of multicasting controller on the backbone (#279).
o Use cases were updated to show only a single CoAP RD (to replace
the previous multiple RDs with one in each subnet). This is a
more efficient deployment and also avoids RD specific issues such
as synchronization of RD information between serves (#280).
o Added text to section 3.6 (Configuring Group Membership in
Endpoints) that clarified that any (unicast) operation to change
an endpoint's group membership must use DTLS-secured CoAP.
o Clarified relationship of this document to [I-D.ietf-core-coap] in
section 2.2 (Scope).
o Removed IPSec related requirement, as IPSec is not part of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] anymore.
o Editorial reordering of subsections in section 3 to have a better
flow of topics. Also renamed some of the (sub)sections to better
reflect their content. Finally, moved the URI Configuration text
to the same section as the Port Configuration section as it was a
more natural grouping (now in section 3.3) .
o Editorial rewording of section 3.7 (Multicast Request Acceptance
and Response Suppression) to make the logic easier to comprehend
(parse).
o Various editorial updates for improved readability.
Changes from ietf-04 to ietf-05:
o Added a new section 3.9 (Exceptions) that highlights that IP
multicast (and hence group communication) is not always available
(#187).
o Updated text on the use of [RFC2119] language (#271) in Section 1.
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o Included guidelines on when (not) to use CoAP responses to
multicast requests and when (not) to accept multicast requests
(#273).
o Added guideline on use of core-block for minimizing response size
(#275).
o Restructured section 6 (Security Considerations) to more fully
describe threats and threat mitigation (#277).
o Clearly indicated that DNS resolution and reverse DNS lookup are
optional.
o Removed confusing text about a single group having multiple IP
addresses. If multiple IP addresses are required then multiple
groups (with the same members) should be created.
o Removed repetitive text about the fact that group communication is
not guaranteed.
o Merged previous section 5.2 (Multicast Routing) into 3.1 (IP
Multicast Routing Background) and added link to section 5.2
(Advertising Membership of Multicast Groups).
o Clarified text in section 3.8 (Congestion Control) regarding
precedence of use of IP multicast domains (i.e. first try to use
link-local scope, then site-local scope, and only use global IP
multicast as a last resort).
o Extended group resource manipulation guidelines with use of pre-
configured ports/paths for the multicast group.
o Consolidated all text relating to ports in a new section 3.3 (Port
Configuration).
o Clarified that all methods (GET/PUT/POST) for configuring group
membership in endpoints should be unicast (and not multicast) in
section 3.7 (Configuring Group Membership In Endpoints).
o Various editorial updates for improved readability, including
editorial comments by Peter van der Stok to WG list of December
18th, 2012.
Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-04:
o Removed section 2.3 (Potential Solutions for Group Communication)
as it is purely background information and moved section to draft-
dijk-core-groupcomm-misc (#266).
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o Added reference to draft-keoh-tls-multicast-security to section 6
(Security Considerations).
o Removed Appendix B (CoAP-Observe Alternative to Group
Communications) as it is as an alternative to IP Multicast that
the WG has not adopted and moved section to draft-dijk-core-
groupcomm-misc (#267).
o Deleted section 8 (Conclusions) as it is redundant (#268).
o Simplified light switch use case (#269) by splitting into basic
operations and additional functions (#269).
o Moved section 3.7 (CoAP Multicast and HTTP Unicast Interworking)
to draft-dijk-core-groupcomm-misc (#270).
o Moved section 3.3.1 (DNS-SD) and 3.3.2 (CoRE Resource Directory)
to draft-dijk-core-groupcomm-misc as these sections essentially
just repeated text from other drafts regarding DNS based features.
Clarified remaining text in this draft relating to DNS based
features to clearly indicate that these features are optional
(#272).
o Focus section 3.5 (Configuring Group Membership) on a single
proposed solution.
o Scope of section 5.3 (Use of MLD) widened to multicast destination
advertisement methods in general.
o Rewrote section 2.2 (Scope) for improved readability.
o Moved use cases that are not addressed to draft-dijk-core-
groupcomm-misc.
o Various editorial updates for improved readability.
Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03:
o Clarified that a group resource manipulation may return back a
mixture of successful and unsuccessful responses (section 3.4 and
Figure 6) (#251).
o Clarified that security option for group communication must be
NoSec mode (section 6) (#250).
o Added mechanism for group membership configuration (#249).
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o Removed IANA request for multicast addresses (section 7) and
replaced with a note indicating that the request is being made in
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] (#248).
o Made the definition of 'group' more specific to group of CoAP
endpoints and included text on UDP port selection (#186).
o Added explanatory text in section 3.4 regarding why not to use
group communication for non-idempotent messages (i.e. CoAP POST)
(#186).
o Changed link-local RD discovery to site-local in RD discovery use
case to make it more realistic.
o Fixed lighting control use case CoAP proxying; now returns
individual CoAP responses as in coap-12.
o Replaced link format I-D with RFC6690 reference.
o Various editorial updates for improved readability
Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02:
o Rewrote congestion control section based on latest CoAP text
including Leisure concept (#188)
o Updated the CoAP/HTTP interworking section and example use case
with more details and use of MLD for multicast group joining
o Key use cases added (#185)
o References to [I-D.vanderstok-core-dna] and draft-castellani-core-
advanced-http-mapping added
o Moved background sections on "MLD" and "CoAP-Observe" to
Appendices
o Removed requirements section (and moved it to draft-dijk-core-
groupcomm-misc)
o Added details for IANA request for group communication multicast
addresses
o Clarified text to distinguish between "link local" and general
multicast cases
o Moved lengthy background section 5 to draft-dijk-core-groupcomm-
misc and replaced with a summary
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Group Communication for CoAP May 2013
o Various editorial updates for improved readability
o Change log added
Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01:
o Moved CoAP-observe solution section to section 2
o Editorial changes
o Moved security requirements into requirements section
o Changed multicast POST to PUT in example use case
o Added CoAP responses in example use case
Changes from rahman-07 to ietf-00:
o Editorial changes
o Use cases section added
o CoRE Resource Directory section added
o Removed section 3.3.5. IP Multicast Transmission Methods
o Removed section 3.4 Overlay Multicast
o Removed section 3.5 CoAP Application Layer Group Management
o Clarified section 4.3.1.3 RPL Routers with Non-RPL Hosts case
o References added and some normative/informative status changes
Authors' Addresses
Akbar Rahman (editor)
InterDigital Communications, LLC
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
Esko Dijk (editor)
Philips Research
Email: esko.dijk@philips.com
Rahman & Dijk Expires November 08, 2013 [Page 36]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 22:40:35 |