[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

CoRE                                                               A. Bhattacharyya
Internet Draft                                                           S. Agrawal
Intended status: Standards Track                                            H. Rath
Expires: August 2019                                                         A. Pal
                                                                   B. Purushothaman
                                                     TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD.
                                                                   February 4, 2019



          Adaptive RESTful Real-time Live Streaming for Things (A-REaLiST)
                      draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01


   Abstract

   This draft presents extensions to Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) to
   enable RESTful Real-time Live Streaming for improving the Quality of Experience
   (QoE) for delay-sensitive Internet of Things (IoT) applications. The overall
   architecture is termed ''Adaptive RESTful Real-time Live Streaming for Things (A-
   REaLiST)''. It is particularly designed for applications which rely on real-time
   augmented vision through live First Person View (FPV) feed from constrained remote
   agents like Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), etc. These extensions provide the
   necessary hooks to help solution designers ensure low-latency transfer of streams
   and, for contents like video, a quick recovery from freeze and corruption without
   incurring undue lag. A-REaLiST is an attempt to provide an integrated approach to
   maintain the balance amongst QoE, resource-efficiency and loss resilience. It
   provides the necessary hooks to optimize system performance by leveraging
   contextual intelligence inferred from instantaneous information segments in
   flight. These extensions equip CoAP with a standard for efficient RESTful
   streaming for Internet of Things (IoT) contrary to HTTP-streaming in conventional
   Internet.

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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."





Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   2. Revisiting CoAP...................................................                                                                           4
      2.1. Some Interesting Aspects of CoAP                                           ................................                                                                           4
      2.2. The Prevalent Approaches for Streaming over Internet ...............                                                                           5
      2.3. CoAP as the Best of Two Worlds .................................                                                                           5
   3. The Approach behind A-REaLiST                                    .......................................                                                                           5
      3.1. Optional Context Aware Semantic Switch                                                ...........................                                                                           5
   4. The Options Introduced                              .............................................                                                                           6
   5. The Handshake and Exchange Semantics .................................                                                                           8
      5.1. Initial Negotiation...........................................                                                                           8
      5.2. Renegotiation...............................................                                                                          10
   6. Some Design Guidelines                              ............................................                                                                          12
      6.1. Implicit Congestion Avoidance .................................                                                                          12
      6.2. Considerations for Consumer-side Rendering ......................                                                                          12


Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   7. IANA Considerations ..............................................                                                                          13
   8. Security Considerations                               ...........................................                                                                          13
   9. References                    ......................................................                                                                          13
      9.1. Normative References                                 .........................................                                                                          13
      9.2. Informative References .......................................                                                                          14

1. Introduction

   IoT emerged to facilitate exchange of frequent-but-small sensory information
   amongst numerous constrained sensors [IOT-ISOC][RFC7452]. However, recent trends
   in industry and research community realize the importance of live visual data as
   important sensory information. There are many discourses available to support this
   observation [Murphy]. Live First Person View (FPV) from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
   (UAV) and dumb robot terminals are being used for futuristic remote control and
   actuation applications for Augmented Reality (AR), Visual Simultaneous
   Localization and Mapping (VSLAM), UAV based surveillance, etc. Efficacy of these
   applications depends on resource-efficient, low-latency, yet high QoE transfer of
   the FPV over the Internet (or IP networks in general). Contrary to the traditional
   video streaming applications, the UAV-like end-points (henceforth referred as
   'video producer') that capture and transmit the FPV are resource constrained
   devices. Moreover, the producer may work in a lossy environment marred with
   fluctuating radio connectivity and disruptions due network congestion.

   The QoE considerations of the video rendering unit (henceforth referred as 'video
   consumer') for these applications are quite different from traditional
   applications. For example, in case of highly delay sensitive AR applications, a
   human brain may not tolerate a noticeable video freeze or delayed reception, which
   might have been overlooked for usual content delivery service like a YouTube
   video. Such delay may result in wrong actuation. For example, delayed FPV from a
   UAV may lead to wrong control commands leading to catastrophic consequences. In
   addition, the communication should be as light-weight as possible to optimize the
   usage of on-board computing and energy resources of the UAV. So, real-time video
   transmissions for IoT applications require special treatment [Pereira]. However,
   as revealed through a detail analysis of the state-of-the-art in the next section,
   the existing solutions do not address such special requirements. This draft
   attempts to bridge this important gap by extending CoAP [RFC7252].

   To realize its purpose, the A-REaLiST architecture relies on [RFC7967] and adds
   few new header options which, taken together, can be conceived to form a
   conceptual 'Stream' extension on CoAP (Fig. 1).









Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


                           +----------------------+
                           |      Application     |
                           +----------------------+   ----
                           |         Stream       |       \
                           |----------------------| \      |CoAP
                           |  Requests/Responses  | |      |extended
                           |----------------------| | CoAP |for
                           |       Messages       | |     / A-REaLiST
                           +----------------------+ / ----
                           +----------------------+
                           |          UDP         |
                           +----------------------+

   Figure 1: Abstract extended layering of CoAP for A-REaLiST with the conceptual
   layer for streaming.


   Though primarily designed for video streaming, these extensions can also be used
   to allow streaming of time-series information on CoAP.

   Note: Block-wise transfer [RFC7959] is a standardized extension to CoAP for
      transferring large application data. The cited use case for this is to perform
      firmware upgrade for a large number of constrained devices. Block-wise
      transfer is primarily concerned with reliable delivery of information. It
      works in synchronized manner. If a message remains unacknowledged despite
      retransmissions then the whole exchange is cancelled. So, it is not suitable
      for real-time delivery [GIoTS] which is requirement for many time-series
      information streams including video.



2. Revisiting CoAP

2.1. Some Interesting Aspects of CoAP

   (  i) CoAP allows both confirmable (CON) and non-confirmable (NON) messaging.

   ( ii) CON mode enables CoAP with an option for reliable RESTful delivery like HTTP
      [RFC2616]on TCP. On the other hand, intelligent use of No-Response option
      [RFC7967] along with NON mode can create an RTP like best-effort messaging on
      UDP.

   (iii) Context based switching between the reliable and best-effort semantics can
      be executed from the end-application level. This way an optimum balance
      between reliability delay-performance can be maintained to improve the overall
      Quality of Experience (QoE).



Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   ( iv) The base CoAP specification is inherently designed for resource constrained
      devices. Hence, a streaming protocol using the stateless RESTful semantics on
      CoAP makes the solution inherently lightweight. So, unlike conventional
      approach the designers can use a single stack that is equally efficient for
      sending the small data out of sensors, as well as, infinite visual stream.

2.2. The Prevalent Approaches for Streaming over Internet

   The two prevalent approaches for streaming over the Internet are as below.

   First approach is to send the information segment over HTTP which uses the
   reliability feature of the underlying Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
   transport. In this case TCP state-machine puts more emphasis on reliable delivery
   of segments rather than maintaining the real-time deadlines. However, this is
   right now the prevalent approach as it treats video and other streams as general
   Internet traffic. So, streaming can seamlessly co-exist with the existing Internet
   architecture. Also, since TCP takes care of ordered delivery, the end-application
   does not need to worry about these matters.

   The other approach is to use a specialized protocol like Real-time Transport
   Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550]. It treats video and other real-time streams as a special
   type of traffic. To ensure real-time delivery, the data is delivered in best-
   effort manner on top of UDP. So, reliable delivery is undermined.

2.3. CoAP as the Best of Two Worlds

   It can be conjectured, tallying the above with previous section, that CoAP
   inherently imbibes the functional features from HTTP-on-TCP (reliable delivery)
   and RTP-on-UDP (best-effort delivery). Further CoAP allows the switching between
   these two seamlessly just by maneuvering the header options.

3. The Approach behind A-REaLiST

   The design stems from the principles of ''progressive download'' on top of the
   RESTful request/response semantics of CoAP. The ''producer'' chunks the continuous
   information stream into segments as per the agreed maximum payload size suggested
   in [RFC7252]. Each chunk is transmitted as a CoAP request to a given resource at
   the ''consumer''. This draft provides the necessary header extensions that enable
   the ''consumer'' to maintain the sequence of the information segments in time and
   space.

3.1. Optional Context Aware Semantic Switch

   Before forming the CoAP message for each segment, the streaming application may
   use a real-time analytics module (henceforth referred as 'analytics module') which
   may provide inference to the ''Stream'' layer to decide the exchange semantics for
   the current segment. The message is sent reliably (CON message) or as best-effort


Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   (NON message with No-Response option) based on the segment's information
   criticality. Criticality is measured in terms of importance of the segment-content
   in reconstruction of the frames at the consumer. However, determination of
   criticality can be done on many aspects involving several application features
   like the source encoding type, the rendering logic at the consumer, etc. This way
   the over-all balance between QoE and resource-consumption may be maintained. Fig.
   2 explains the idea with conceptual blocks. The overall concept and its efficacy
   has been explained with experimental results in [Wi-UAV-Globecom]

          +----------------------+
          |      Application     | Information segment    ---------
          +----------------------+ ====================> |Real-time|
          |         Stream       | <==================== |Analytics|
          |----------------------|  Reliable/             ---------
          |  Requests/Responses  |  Best-effort?
          |----------------------|
          |       Messages       |
          +----------------------+

   Figure 2: Illustrating the concept for context aware switching

   Some examples are:

   Example-1: Temporally compressed videos like MPEG consist of Group of Pictures
      (GoP) which comprises I-frames (Intra-frames) or key-frames, P-frames
      (Predicted frames) and B-frames (Bidirectional frames). Out of these 3 types
      of frames I-frames are most critical in terms of synchronizing with the GoP at
      the receiver end for successful rendering. So, an analytics module at the
      ''video producer'' end may infer each information segments of I-frames as
      critical and send those segments reliably. The segments corresponding to P and
      B frames may be transferred as best-effort requests.

   Example-2: Let us consider a Motion JPEG (MJPEG) stream. In this case all the
      frames are independent JPEG frames and there is no temporal compression. The
      analytics module may treat the segments containing MJPEG meta-data for each
      frame as critical segments and transfer them through reliable messaging. Rest
      of the segments may be transferred as best-effort requests. An intelligent
      rendering engine at the ''consumer'' application may compensate for / conceal
      any possible loss of non-meta-data (non-critical) segments using the reliably
      received meta-data and rest of the non-meta-data segments received through
      best-effort. This way high QoE can be ensured despite reduced resource usage.

4. The Options Introduced

   To achieve the purpose of the Stream layer, three new protocol header options have
   been proposed as below:



Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   1) Stream_info: Consumes one unsigned byte. It maintains the stream identity and
      indicates the present phase of exchange. It is both a request and response
      option. It has two fields. The 3-LSBs indicate the state of exchange
      (Stream_state) and 5-MSBs indicate an identifier (Stream_id) for the stream.
      The identifier remains unchanged for the entire stream. So,

       Stream_id = Stream_info >> 3;
       Stream_ state = Stream_info & 0x7.

       Interpretation of Stream_state bits are :
       000=> stream initiation (always with request);

       001=> initiation accepted (always with response);

       010=> initiation rejected (always with response);

       011=> stream re-negotiation (with request or response);

       100=> stream ongoing.

   2) Time-stamp: It consumes 32-bit unsigned integer. It is a request option. It
      relates a particular application information segment to the corresponding
      frame in the play sequence.

   3) Position: It consumes 16-bit unsigned integer. It is a request option and MUST
      be accompanied with the Time-stamp option. It is a combination of two fields.
      The 15-MSBs indicate the ''offset'' at which the present segment is placed in
      the frame corresponding to the given timestamp. The LSB indicates if the
      current segment is the last segment of the frame corresponding to the given
      timestamp. Hence,
       Last_segment = Position &0x01 ? True : False;
       Offset = (Position >> 1).

   +-----+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | No. | C | U | N | R | Name         | Format | Length | Default |
   +-----+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | TBD | X |   | - |   | Stream-info  |  uint  |    1   | (none)  |
   +-----+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | TBD | X |   | - |   | Time-stamp   |  uint  |    4   | (none)  |
   +-----+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | TBD | X |   | - |   | Position     |  uint  |    2   | (none)  |
   +-----+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+

                           Table 1: Option Properties





Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


5. The Handshake and Exchange Semantics

   As per the design considerations in view of the scenarios conceived at present,
   video transfer is initiated by the ''producer'' which acts as the client.

   Note: The design considerations are driven by the experiences drawn from the
   applications where live video feeds are transmitted from battery operated
   constrained ''video producers'' like UAVs and dumb robotic terminals, etc.  For
   example, while a fixed infrastructure system is using streamed FPV feed from UAVs,
   there may be situations where each time a UAV is low on resources (energy and
   computation, a new UAV with better state of resources (fresh battery, etc.) is
   commissioned. The overall operation becomes simple if the newly commissioned UAV
   readily starts its job by streaming to the same resource at the fixed
   infrastructure. It can be easily configured to determine whether the consumer is
   up and watching by observing the responses to the CON requests. In case the
   exchange is initiated by the consumer then whenever a new UAV is commissioned, the
   consumer has to re-initiate the request again.

   Each segment is transmitted to the ''video consumer'' as a POST request. The Time-
   stamp and Position options help sequential ordering of the segments at the
   consumer.

5.1. Initial Negotiation

   Initial negotiations for frame rate, video type, encoding details, etc., are
   performed by exchanging configuration scripts (cbor or json) over POST request.
   Exact format of the script is application dependent and is not part of this draft.

   Fig. 3 illustrates the exemplary exchanges related to handshakes for connection
   initiation.

   Note: All reliable transfers are in blocking mode. So, the producer MUST wait to
   send any further segment (critical/ on-critical) till the response is received for
   the critical segment. Please refer to Section 6 for suggested behavior in case a
   reliable transfer fails.














Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Client (Producer)                                  Server (Consumer)
   |                                                  |
   | POST: CON;                                       |
   |       URI=/video;                                |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>000;               |
   |       Payload= CBOR or JSON                      |\
   +------------------------------------------------->| |
   |                                                  | |Stream
   | ACK;                                             | |negotiation
   | Response = 2.04 CHANGED                          | |
   | Steam-info = <5-bit ID>001                       | |
   |<-------------------------------------------------|/
   :                                                  :
   :                                                  :
   |(First segment of an MJPEG frame. Contains        |
   | meta-data. Critical segment needs reliable       |
   | delivery.)                                       |
   |                                                  |
   | POST: CON;                                       |
   |       URI=/video;                                |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>100;               |
   |       Time-stamp = <time_stamp_of_this_frame>;   |
   |       Position = 0;                              |
   |       Payload= <Bytes_in_1st segment>            |\
   +------------------------------------------------->| |
   |                                                  | |
   | ACK;                                             | |
   | Response = 2.04 CHANGED                          | |
   | Steam-info = <5-bit ID>100                       | |
   |<-------------------------------------------------| |
   |(Second segment of an MJPEG frame. Contains       | |
   | non-meta-data. Non-critical segment- best effort | |
   | transfer.)                                       | |
   |                                                  | | Stream
   | POST: NON;                                       | | ongoing
   |       URI=/video; No-response = 127              | |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>100;               | |
   |       Time-stamp = <time_stamp_of_this_frame>;   | |
   |       Position = 1024;                           | |
   |       Payload= <Bytes_in 2nd _segment>           | |
   +------------------------------------------------->| |
   |                                                  | |
   :                                                  : |






Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Figure 3: Example showing successful negotiation of streaming parameters followed
   by transmission of video information and control. It is assumed that the segment
   size negotiated as 1024 at the initiation. So, the position of the 2nd block is
   1024. Note the use of No-response option with NON request for the non-critical
   segment.


5.2. Renegotiation

   The renegotiation phase may occur when the ''consumer'' does not agree to
   parameters proposed by the producer and proposes a modified set. This may happen
   when the consumer application may need a less frame-rate than what is proposed by
   the producer. So, the ''consumer'' may request a lower frame-rate and thereby avoid
   unnecessary traffic in the network. The reduction may also be driven by the
   processing load on the producer which is anyway a constrained device. So, if a
   consumer requests more frame-rate than what is initially proposed by the producer,
   then the producer may insist on the lower frame-rate. Renegotiation may also occur
   if, during a stream, the producer senses a change in the end-to-end channel
   condition and proposes a new set of best possible parameters that  can be served
   to the consumer.

   Note that, that the consumer is never allowed to exceed the limits advertised by
   the producer.

   Fig. 4 illustrates exemplary exchanges for re-negotiation.
























Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Client (Producer)                                  Server (Consumer)
   |                                                  |
   | POST: CON;                                       |
   |       URI=/video;                                |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>000;               |
   |       Payload= CBOR or JSON                      |\ Initial
   +------------------------------------------------->| |negotiation
   |                                                  | |followed by
   | ACK;                                             | |renegotiation
   | Response = 2.04 CHANGED                          | |request with
   | Steam-info = <5-bit ID>010                       | |revised
   | Payload= CBOR or JSON                            | |params.
   |<-------------------------------------------------|/
   |                                                  |
   | POST: CON;                                       |
   |       URI=/video;                                |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>010;               |
   |       Payload= CBOR or JSON                      |\ Successful
   +------------------------------------------------->| |renegotiation
   |                                                  | |as the
   | ACK;                                             | |consumer
   | Response = 2.04 CHANGED                          | |agrees to the
   | Steam-info = <5-bit ID>001                       | |revised
   |<-------------------------------------------------|/ proposal.
   :                                                  :
   :              (Streaming starts)                  :

   Figure 4: Example showing successful renegotiation of streaming parameters. Note
   the maneuvering of the Stream-info bit patterns.

   Fig. 5 illustrates exemplary exchanges when a stream negotiation is unsuccessful.
   The accompanied script may provide hints to the reason for unsuccessful
   negotiations. A simple case of unsuccessful attempt may be observed if the
   resource on the ''consumer'' side is not ready. The exact formatting of the script
   is not in the scope of this draft.














Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Client (Producer)                                  Server (Consumer)
   |                                                  |
   | POST: CON;                                       |
   |       URI=/video;                                |
   |       Stream-info = <5-bit ID>000;               |
   |       Payload= CBOR or JSON                      |\ Unsuccessful
   +------------------------------------------------->| |negotiation.
   |                                                  | |The request
   | ACK;                                             | |is successful.
   | Response = 2.04 CHANGED                          | |But consumer
   | Steam-info = <5-bit ID>011                       | |may reject
   | Payload= CBOR or JSON                            | |for some
   |<-------------------------------------------------|/ reason
   |                                                  |  mentioned in
                                                         Script.

   Figure 5: Example showing unsuccessful renegotiation despite successful response
   code against the initiation request.

6. Some Design Guidelines

6.1. Implicit Congestion Avoidance

   The throughput and resource optimization for A-REaLiST depends largely on the
   best-effort delivery on UDP.  Despite that the application designer can make A-
   REaLiST implicitly congestion aware and proactively avoid congestion. CoAP has a
   basic congestion avoidance mechanism which uses exponential back off to increase
   the timeout for retransmissions. However, that works only for CON messages.

   The implicit congestion avoidance works like this:  In case the producer fails to
   successfully transfer a critical segment of a frame within the MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN
   as well as within MAX_RETRANSMIT [RFC7252] attempts, the producer drops
   transmission of rest of the segments in that frame and waits for the next frame to
   be ready. The rationale is, since the critical segment is not delivered, the
   consumer will fail to reconstruct this frame anyway. So, there is no point in
   clogging the network with rest of the segments.

6.2. Considerations for Consumer-side Rendering

   While the critical segments are delivered reliably in a sequential manner, non-
   critical are delivered with best-effort in an open-loop exchange. Also, the whole
   frame can be dropped to avoid congestion. Hence, the application at the
   ''consumer'' end-point (server) needs to deal with issues like out-of-order
   delivery, frame/segment loss, asynchronous segment arrival.

   The issues mentioned above have been discussed in literatures [Perkins]. So the
   basic approach should be: Buffer till a critical time to iron out the jittery,


Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   out-of-order arrival of the segments, play out from the appropriate buffer at a
   constant rate determined by the frame-rate of the video. There may be intelligent
   algorithms to play-out with high QoE despite non-arrival of non-critical segments
   within the play-out deadline. This draft provides the hooks to create such
   designs. Reference architecture of the play-out mechanism is provided in [Wi-UAV-
   Globecom]. The play-out architecture leverages on the design assumption about the
   'less-constrained' nature of the consumer in terms of memory and processor.

6.3. Determining the segment size

   Size of the information segment in a CoAP message should be limited by the least
   possible MTU for the end-to-end channel. This is to ensure that there is no
   undesired conversation state at the lower layers of the protocol stack due to
   uncontrolled fragmentation leading to undesired explosion of traffic in the
   network. For IPV6 network, the MTU can be determined using Path MTU Discovery
   (PMTUD) [RFC8201] which bestows the responsibility of determining the path MTU on
   the end-points itself.

   The size of the segment should be guided by the recommendations as specified in
   Section 4.6 of [RFC7252].

7. IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to assign numbers to the three options introduced in this
   draft for inclusion in the ''CoAP Option Numbers" registry as shown below.

               +--------+--------------+-------------+
               | Number |     Name     |  Reference  |
               +--------+--------------+-------------+
               |   TBD  | Stream-info  |  Section 4  |
               +--------+--------------+-------------+
               |   TBD  |  Time-stamp  |  Section 4  |
               +--------+--------------+-------------+
               |   TBD  |   Position   |  Section 4  |
               +--------+--------------+-------------+

8. Security Considerations

   This draft presents no security considerations beyond those in Section 11 of the
   base CoAP specification [RFC7252].

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC7252]



Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Shelby, Z., Hartke, K. and Bormann, C.,"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
   RFC 7252, June, 2014.

   [RFC7967]

   Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A., Bose, T., ''Constrained Application
   Protocol (CoAP) Option for No Server Response'', RFC 7967, August, 2016.

   [RFC8201]

   McCann, J., et al., ''Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6'', RFC 8201, July, 2017.

9.2. Informative References


   [IOT-ISOC]

   Rose, K., Eldridge, S., Chapin, L., ''The Internet of Things: an overview'',
   Internet Society, pp.1-50, October, 2015.

   [RFC7452]

   Tschofenig, H., Arkko, J., McPherson, D., "Architectural Considerations in Smart
   Object Networking", RFC 7452, March, 2015.

   [Murphy]

   Murphy, C., ''Internet of Things: Are you underestimating video?'', Available
   online:
   http://www.informationweek.com/bigdata/bigdataanalytics/internetofthingsareyouunde
   restimatingvideo/a/d-id/1269508, June, 2014.

   [Pereira]

   Pereira, R., Pereira, E. G., ''Video Streaming Considerations for Internet of
   Things'', International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud, pp. 48-
   52, August, 2014.

   [RFC7959]

   Bormann, C., Shelby, Z., ''Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application
   Protocol (CoAP)'', RFC 7959, August, 2016.

   [GIoTS]





Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


   Dey, S., Bhattacharyya, A., Mukherjee, A., "Semantic data exchange between
   collaborative robots in fog environment: Can CoAP be a choice?", Global IoTS, pp.
   1-6, June, 2017.

   [RFC2616]

   Fielding, R., Irvine, U.C., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
   Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., ''Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1'', RFC 2616,
   June, 1999.

   [RFC3550]

   Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., Jacobson, V., ''RTP: A Transport
   Protocol for Real-Time Applications'', RFC 3550, July, 2003.

   [Wi-UAV-Globecom]

   Bhattacharyya, A., Agrawal, S., Rath, H., Pal, A., ''Improving Live-streaming
   Experience for Delay-sensitive IoT Applications : A RESTful Approach'', accepted in
   Globecom (Wi-UAV workshop), Dec., 2018.

   [Perkins]

   Perkins, C., ''RTP: Audio and Video for the Internet'', Addison-Wesley, 2003.
























Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         draft-bhattacharyya-core-a-realist-01         February 2019


Authors' Addresses

   Abhijan Bhattacharyya
   Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
   Kolkata, India

   Email: abhijan.bhattacharyya@tcs.com



   Suvrat Agrawal
   Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
   Bangalore, India

   Email: suvrat.a@tcs.com



   Hemant Rath
   Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
   Bhubaneswar, India

   Email: hemant.rath@tcs.com


   Arpan Pal
   Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
   Kolkata, India

   Email: arpan.pal@tcs.com



   Balamurali Purushothaman
   Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
   Bangalore, India

   Email: arpan.pal@tcs.com











Bhattacharyya, et al.        Expires August 4, 2019                    [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/