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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

CoRE                                                              Y. Doi
Internet-Draft                                       TOSHIBA Corporation
Intended status: Informational                                   K. Lynn
Expires: April 18, 2013                                       Consultant
                                                        October 15, 2012


                   CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option
                   draft-doi-core-parameter-option-01

Abstract

   Content-Types may have 'parameter' to make fine-grained description
   of contents.  The CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option (CT-Parameter
   Option) and Accept Content-Type Parameter Option (Accept-CT-Parameter
   Option) are CoAP options to add a parameter to a Content-Type.

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 April 18, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.



Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Use Cases of Option Parameter in CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Parameter Coordination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Schema Negotiation of Schema-Informed EXI Communication . . 3
   3.  Content-Type Parameter Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  Proposed Content-Type Parameter Option  . . . . . . . . . . 4
       3.2.1.  CT-Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.2.2.  Accept-CT-Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.2.3.  Attribute ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Consideration on Compact Encodings of
                Content-Type Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix B.  ChangeLog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
































Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


1.  Introduction

   Content-Type field[RFC2045] have 'parameter' to make fine-grained
   description of contents.  The document proposes the CoAP Content-Type
   Parameter Option that enables wide range of parameter description
   over content types used in CoAP.


2.  Use Cases of Option Parameter in CoAP

2.1.  Parameter Coordination

   If a content-type have wide variety of parameters, a node need to
   know which parameter is acceptable or not via Accept: header. audio/
   rtp-midi[RFC6295] is an example of a content-type with various
   parameters.

   The audio use case seems not to be widely used in CoAP so far.
   However, the same use case is applicable for sensor data.  Sensor
   data is time series data and it is possible to define a content type
   with preferred sensing interval to avoid over/underquality of
   sampling.  In such cases, parameters with wildcard (rate=*) or range
   (rate=10-20) is useful.

2.2.  Schema Negotiation of Schema-Informed EXI Communication

   In some use case of Schema-Informed EXI [W3C.REC-exi-20110310], a
   server and a client need to coordinate a XML schema to encode a
   message.  If there are some versions of XML schemas in an
   application, a sender (may be server or client) needs to know schemas
   a receiver has.

   There are two choices.  First choice is to define a content-type for
   each version of XML schema.  However, there are two problems.  First,
   the Content-type ID space is a global space and not suitable to
   describe every minor revision.  Second, Content-type ID per schema
   cannot describe relation between a linage of schemas.  XML schema
   could be backword compatible and newer schema version can be applied
   on older document validation and EXI codings.  Common practice on
   this is to use (major).(minor) style versioning.

   However, content-ID or other class of ID cannot describe which
   version is compatible and which version is not compatible.

   The other choice is to make use of content-type parameters.  It seems
   to be more acceptable because parameter is local to each content-
   type.  For example, an application may define 'application/
   example-exi' as a content-type for the application.  The application



Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


   may use 'sv' parameter as acceptable schema version.  If the
   application use backword-compatible approach, 'Accept: application/
   example-exi;sv=1.4' from a client means the client can receive schema
   version 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.

   Detailed discussion on EXI schema negotiation can be found in
   (#I-D.doi-exi-messaging-requirements).


3.  Content-Type Parameter Option

3.1.  Requirements

   In general, a content-type parameter has following notations.

   parameter := ";" attribute "=" value
   attribute := token  ; case insensitive
   value := token / quoted-string

   In CoAP, a content-type parameter should have similar ability of
   expression with regards to use cases.  At the same time, a CoAP
   option should be compact enough to fit in constrained environments.

   As CoAP options do not have room for parameters, the content-type
   parameter option is designed to be an independent option that gives
   additional description on a content-type in a CoAP message.

   An attribute of CoAP option parameter should be fit in relatively
   smaller set.  The author considers the attribute part could be
   described in short integer (16 bits).  On the other hand, the value
   part should have higher degree of freedom for applications including
   wildcards and range description.  The author believes it is simple
   and safe to have a string value in option parameter option.

3.2.  Proposed Content-Type Parameter Option

   Table 1: List of options.  U: proxy-Unsafe, C: Critical, R:
   Repeatable

   +-----+---+---+---+---------------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | No. | U | C | R | Name                | Format | Length | Default |
   +-----+---+---+---+---------------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | TBD |   |   | x | CT-Parameter        | (see   | 2-270B | (none)  |
   | 1   |   |   |   |                     | below) |        |         |
   | TBD |   |   | x | Accept-CT-Parameter | (see   | 3-270B | (none)  |
   | 2   |   |   |   |                     | below) |        |         |
   +-----+---+---+---+---------------------+--------+--------+---------+




Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


3.2.1.  CT-Parameter

   The CT-Parameter option is used to attach a parameter on a Content-
   Type option on the same CoAP message.  The CT-parameter options are
   proxy safe, elective.

   An CT-Parameter option has two fields: attribute ID(aid) and value.

   |<-- option length ----->|

   +---------+---------....-+
   |   aid   | value        |
   +---------+---------....-+

   |<2 Bytes>|<- optlen-2 ->|

   Figure 1: Structure of CT-Parameter Option

   Attribute ID (aid) is a two-byte integer that describes the attribute
   name (key) of the parameter.  Details are described in later section
   (see Table 2).

   A value is opaque octets (Unicode string in most cases) with the
   length of the option length minus two (2) octets.  A value may be
   empty.  Meanings of the values are up to the content-type.

3.2.2.  Accept-CT-Parameter

   The Accept-CT-Parameter option is used to attach a parameter on a
   Accept option on the same CoAP message.  The Accept-CT-parameter
   options are proxy safe, elective.

   An Accept-CT-Parameter option has three fields: option index(idx),
   attribute ID(aid), and value.

   |<---- option length -------->|

   +----+---------+---------....-+
   | idx|   aid   | value        |
   +----+---------+---------....-+

   |<1B>|<2 Bytes>|<- optlen-3 ->|

   :Figure 2: Structure of Accept-CT-Parameter Option

   An option index is a 1-byte integer.  Since a coap message may have
   multiple accept options, each Accept-CT-Parameter option needs index
   to the Accept option to parameterize.  The index is 0-origin and less



Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


   than the number of accept headers in the message.  Index 255 is
   reserved and SHOULD not be used.

   For example, if a message has three Accept options, idx=0 is for the
   first Accept option, idx=1 is for the second, idx=2 is for the last.

   Attribute ID (aid) is a two-byte integer that describes the attribute
   name (key) of the parameter.  Details are described in later section
   (see Table 2).

   A value is opaque octets (Unicode string in most cases) with the
   length of the option length minus three (3) octets.  A value may be
   empty.  Meanings of the values are up to the content-type.

3.2.3.  Attribute ID

   Attribute ID is a 2-byte integer.  An attribute is described in
   2-byte integer as shown in the following table.

   Table 2: List of Attribute IDs

                 +-------+------------+-----------------+
                 | ID    | Name       | Reference       |
                 +-------+------------+-----------------+
                 | 0     | (reserved) |                 |
                 | 1     | charset    | RFC2045         |
                 | 2     | version    | RFC2045,RFC2046 |
                 | 3     | boundary   | RFC2045         |
                 | 4     | type       | RFC2046         |
                 | 5     | padding    | RFC2046         |
                 | 6     | msgtype    | RFC2616         |
                 | 7     | filename   | RFC2616         |
                 | 8     | level      | RFC2616         |
                 | 65535 | (reserved) |                 |
                 +-------+------------+-----------------+

   Other attribute ID may be managed and added by IANA, based on first-
   come-first-serve basis for parameters defined in RFCs.  Parameters
   described in an internet draft or in proprietary extensions may be
   added upon approval of core WG experts.


4.  Security Considerations

   Applications on the CoAP should check the validity of parameters
   before use.  It may contain arbitrary string value.





Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


5.  IANA Considerations

   Attribute ID registry policy should be lined up with IANA
   considerations of [#I-D.ietf-core-coap].


6.  Normative References

   [I-D.doi-exi-messaging-requirements]
              Doi, D., "EXI Messaging Requirements",
              draft-doi-exi-messaging-requirements (work in progress),
              October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-core-coap]
              Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
              "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
              draft-ietf-core-coap-11 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
              November 1996.

   [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.

   [RFC6295]  Lazzaro, J. and J. Wawrzynek, "RTP Payload Format for
              MIDI", RFC 6295, June 2011.

   [W3C.REC-exi-20110310]
              Kamiya, T. and J. Schneider, "Efficient XML Interchange
              (EXI) Format 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-exi-20110310, March 2011,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-exi-20110310>.


Appendix A.  Consideration on Compact Encodings of Content-Type
             Parameter

   The use of 'value' part of parameter is up to the content-type.  Some
   content-type may use non-string integer or other format to describe
   values in compact format, e.g.  TLV, fixed-length integers, etc.

   The specification that defines a content-type may define ASCII/UTF-8



Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


   notation for HTTP use and binary compact notation for CoAP.  Anyway,
   CoAP software/library will not need to understand content-type
   parameter.  The parameter should be transferred from/to application
   without modification.


Appendix B.  ChangeLog

   o  from draft-doi-core-option-parameter-option-00 to
      draft-doi-core-ct-parameter-option-00

      *  Effect of the option is limited to Content-Type parameter (i.e.
         Content-Type and Accept option).

      *  Name of the option has changed to 'Content-Type Parameter
         Option'

      *  Removed Accept: preference use case (CoAP already defines
         accept option order as preference)

      *  Removed Option Parameter Option 2 and 3.

      *  Option Parameter Option is replaced with content-type parameter
         option and accept content-type parameter option.

      *  Options are now considered to be proxy-safe (is it the right
         assumption?)

      *  Some other unneccessary descriptions on option parameters (such
         as option order constraint) are removed


Authors' Addresses

   Yusuke Doi
   TOSHIBA Corporation
   Komukai Toshiba Cho 1
   Saiwai-Ku
   Kawasaki, Kanagawa  2128582
   JAPAN

   Phone: +81-45-342-7230
   Email: yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp








Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     CoAP Content-Type Parameter Option       October 2012


   Kerry Lynn
   Consultant

   Phone: +1 978 460 4253
   Email: kerlyn@ieee.org














































Doi & Lynn               Expires April 18, 2013                 [Page 9]


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