[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-castellani-core-http-mapping) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 8075

CoRE Working Group                                         A. Castellani
Internet-Draft                                      University of Padova
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Loreto
Expires: April 6, 2017                                          Ericsson
                                                               A. Rahman
                                        InterDigital Communications, LLC
                                                              T. Fossati
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                 E. Dijk
                                                        Philips Lighting
                                                         October 3, 2016


          Guidelines for HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping Implementations
                    draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-15

Abstract

   This document provides reference information for implementing a
   cross-protocol network proxy that performs translation from the HTTP
   protocol to CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol).  This will
   enable a HTTP client to access resources on a CoAP server through the
   proxy.  This document describes how a HTTP request is mapped to a
   CoAP request, and then how a CoAP response is mapped back to a HTTP
   response.  This includes guidelines for URI mapping, media type
   mapping and additional proxy implementation issues.

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 6, 2017.








Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  HTTP-to-CoAP Proxy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  URI Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  URI Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Null Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Default Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.3.1.  Optional Scheme Omission  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.3.2.  Encoding Caveats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  URI Mapping Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.4.1.  Simple Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.4.2.  Enhanced Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.5.  Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.5.1.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Media Type Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  'application/coap-payload' Media Type . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.3.  Loose Media Type Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.4.  Media Type to Content Format Mapping Algorithm  . . . . .  18
     6.5.  Content Transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.5.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.5.2.  CoRE Link Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       6.5.3.  Diagnostic Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Response Code Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Additional Mapping Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.1.  Caching and Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.2.  Cache Refresh via Observe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.3.  Use of CoAP Blockwise Transfer  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.4.  CoAP Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.5.  Timeouts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.1.  New 'core.hc' Resource Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.2.  New 'coap-payload' Internet Media Type  . . . . . . . . .  26
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.1.  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     10.2.  Traffic Overflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     10.3.  Handling Secured Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     10.4.  URI Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37

1.  Introduction

   CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) [RFC7252] has been designed
   with the twofold aim to be an application protocol specialized for
   constrained environments and to be easily used in Representational
   State Transfer (REST) based architectures such as the Web.  The
   latter goal has led to defining CoAP to easily interoperate with HTTP
   [RFC7230] through an intermediary proxy which performs cross-protocol
   conversion.

   Section 10 of [RFC7252] describes the fundamentals of the CoAP-to-
   HTTP and the HTTP-to-CoAP cross-protocol mapping process.  However,
   [RFC7252] focuses on the basic mapping of request methods and simple
   response code mapping between HTTP and CoAP, and it leaves many
   details of the cross-protocol proxy for future definition.
   Therefore, a primary goal of this informational document is to define
   a consistent set of guidelines that an HTTP-to-CoAP proxy
   implementation should adhere to.  The key benefit to adhering to such
   guidelines is to reduce variation between proxy implementations,
   thereby increasing interoperability between an HTTP client and a CoAP
   server independent of the proxy that implements the cross-protocol
   mapping.  (For example, a proxy conforming to these guidelines made
   by vendor A can be easily replaced by a proxy from vendor B that also
   conforms to the guidelines.)

   This document describes HTTP mappings that apply to protocol elements
   defined in the base CoAP specification [RFC7252].  It is up to CoAP
   protocol extensions (new methods, response codes, options, content-
   formats) to describe their own HTTP mappings, if applicable.

   This document is organized as follows:

   o  Section 2 defines proxy terminology;



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   o  Section 3 introduces the HTTP-to-CoAP proxy;

   o  Section 4 lists use cases in which HTTP clients need to contact
      CoAP servers;

   o  Section 5 introduces a null, default and advanced HTTP-to-CoAP URI
      mapping syntax;

   o  Section 6 describes how to map HTTP media types to CoAP content
      formats and vice versa;

   o  Section 7 describes how to map CoAP responses to HTTP responses;

   o  Section 8 describes additional mapping guidelines related to
      caching, congestion, timeouts, etc.;

   o  Section 10 discusses possible security impact of HTTP-to-CoAP
      protocol mapping.

2.  Terminology

   The keywords "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].

   HC Proxy: a proxy performing a cross-protocol mapping, in the context
   of this document an HTTP-to-CoAP (HC) mapping.  Specifically, the HC
   proxy acts as an HTTP server and a CoAP client.  The HC Proxy can
   take on the role of a Forward, Reverse or Interception Proxy.

   Forward Proxy (or Forward HC Proxy): a message forwarding agent that
   is selected by the HTTP client, usually via local configuration
   rules, to receive requests for some type(s) of absolute URI and to
   attempt to satisfy those requests via translation to the protocol
   indicated by the absolute URI.  The user decides (is willing) to use
   the proxy as the forwarding/de-referencing agent for a predefined
   subset of the URI space.  In [RFC7230] this is called a Proxy.
   [RFC7252] defines Forward-Proxy similarly.

   Reverse Proxy (or Reverse HC Proxy): as in [RFC7230], a receiving
   agent that acts as a layer above some other server(s) and translates
   the received requests to the underlying server's protocol.  A Reverse
   HC Proxy behaves as an origin (HTTP) server on its connection from
   the HTTP client.  The HTTP client uses the "origin-form"
   (Section 5.3.1 of [RFC7230]) as a request-target URI.





Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   (Note that a Reverse Proxy appears to an HTTP client as an origin
   server while a Forward Proxy does not.  So, when communicating with a
   Reverse Proxy a client may be unaware it is communicating with a
   proxy at all.)

   Interception Proxy (or Interception HC Proxy) [RFC3040]: a proxy that
   receives inbound HTTP traffic flows through the process of traffic
   redirection; transparent to the HTTP client.

3.  HTTP-to-CoAP Proxy

   A HC proxy is accessed by an HTTP client which wants to access a
   resource on a CoAP server.  The HC proxy handles the HTTP request by
   mapping it to the equivalent CoAP request, which is then forwarded to
   the appropriate CoAP server.  The received CoAP response is then
   mapped to an appropriate HTTP response and finally sent back to the
   originating HTTP client.

   See Figure 1 for an example deployment scenario.  Here a HC proxy is
   located at the boundary of the Constrained Network domain, to avoid
   sending any HTTP traffic into the Constrained Network and to avoid
   any CoAP multicast traffic outside the Constrained Network.  A DNS
   server (not shown) is used by the HTTP Client to resolve the IP
   address of the HC proxy and optionally also used by the HC proxy to
   resolve IP addresses of CoAP servers.


























Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


                                               Constrained Network
                                              .-------------------.
                                             /      .------.       \
                                            /       | CoAP |        \
                                           /        |server|         \
                                          ||        '------'         ||
                                          ||                         ||
     .--------.  HTTP Request   .------------.  CoAP Req  .------.   ||
     |  HTTP  |---------------->|HTTP-to-CoAP|----------->| CoAP |   ||
     | Client |<----------------|   Proxy    |<-----------|Server|   ||
     '--------'  HTTP Response  '------------'  CoAP Resp '------'   ||
                                          ||                         ||
                                          ||   .------.              ||
                                          ||   | CoAP |              ||
                                           \   |server|  .------.    /
                                            \  '------'  | CoAP |   /
                                             \           |server|  /
                                              \          '------' /
                                               '-----------------'


             Figure 1: HTTP-To-CoAP Proxy Deployment Scenario

   Normative requirements on the translation of HTTP requests to CoAP
   requests and of the CoAP responses back to HTTP responses are defined
   in Section 10.2 of [RFC7252].  However, [RFC7252] focuses on the
   basic mapping of request methods and simple response code mapping
   between HTTP and CoAP, and leaves many details of the cross-protocol
   HC proxy for future definition.  This document provides additional
   guidelines and more details for the implementation of a HC Proxy,
   which should be followed in addition to the normative requirements.
   Note that the guidelines apply to all forms of an HC proxy (i.e.,
   Reverse, Forward, Intercepting) unless explicitly otherwise noted.

4.  Use Cases

   To illustrate the situations HTTP to CoAP protocol translation may be
   used, three use cases are described below.

   1.  Legacy building control application without CoAP: A building
   control application that uses HTTP but not CoAP can check the status
   of CoAP sensors and/or control actuators via a HC proxy.

   2.  Making sensor data available to 3rd parties on the Web: For
   demonstration or public interest purposes, a HC proxy may be
   configured to expose the contents of a CoAP sensor to the world via
   the web (HTTP and/or HTTPS).  Some sensors may only accept secure
   'coaps' requests, therefore the proxy is configured to translate



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   request to those devices accordingly.  The HC proxy is furthermore
   configured to only pass through GET requests in order to protect the
   constrained network.

   3.  Smartphone and home sensor: A smartphone can access directly a
   CoAP home sensor using a mutually authenticated 'https' request,
   provided its home router runs a HC proxy and is configured with the
   appropriate certificate.  An HTML5 [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]
   application on the smartphone can provide a friendly UI using the
   standard (HTTP) networking functions of HTML5.

   A key point in the above use cases is the expected nature of the URI
   to be used by the HTTP client initiating the HTTP request to the HC
   proxy.  Specifically, in use case #1, there will be no "coap" or
   "coaps" related information embedded in the HTTP URI as it is a
   legacy HTTP client sending the request.  Use case #2 is also expected
   to be similar.  In contrast, in use case #3, it is expected that the
   HTTP client will specifically embed "coap" or "coaps" related
   information in the HTTP URI of the HTTP request to the HC proxy.

5.  URI Mapping

   Though, in principle, a CoAP URI could be directly used by a HTTP
   client to de-reference a CoAP resource through a HC proxy, the
   reality is that all major web browsers, networking libraries and
   command line tools do not allow making HTTP requests using URIs with
   a scheme "coap" or "coaps".

   Thus, there is a need for web applications to embed or "pack" a CoAP
   URI into a HTTP URI so that it can be (non-destructively) transported
   from the HTTP client to the HC proxy.  The HC proxy can then "unpack"
   the CoAP URI and finally de-reference it via a CoAP request to the
   target Server.

   URI Mapping is the term used in the document to describe the process
   through which the URI of a CoAP resource is transformed into an HTTP
   URI so that:

   o  the requesting HTTP client can handle it;

   o  the receiving HC proxy can extract the intended CoAP URI
      unambiguously.

   To this end, the remainder of this section will identify:

   o  the default mechanism to map a CoAP URI into a HTTP URI;





Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   o  the URI template format to express a class of CoAP-HTTP URI
      mapping functions;

   o  the discovery mechanism based on CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]
      through which clients of a HC proxy can dynamically discover
      information about the supported URI Mapping Template(s), as well
      as the URI where the HC proxy function is anchored.

5.1.  URI Terminology

   In the remainder of this section, the following terms will be used
   with a distinctive meaning:

   HC Proxy URI:
           URI which refers to the HC proxy function.  It conforms to
           syntax defined in Section 2.7 of [RFC7230].

   Target CoAP URI:
           URI which refers to the (final) CoAP resource that has to be
           de-referenced.  It conforms to syntax defined in Section 6 of
           [RFC7252].  Specifically, its scheme is either "coap" or
           "coaps".

   Hosting HTTP URI:
           URI that conforms to syntax in Section 2.7 of [RFC7230].  Its
           authority component refers to a HC proxy, whereas path (and
           query) component(s) embed the information used by a HC proxy
           to extract the Target CoAP URI.

5.2.  Null Mapping

   The null mapping is the case where there is no Target CoAP URI
   appended to the HC Proxy URI.  In other words, it is a "pure" HTTP
   URI that is sent to the HC Proxy.  This would typically occur in
   situations like Use Case #1 described in Section 4, and the Proxy
   would typically be a Reverse Proxy.  In this scenario, the HC Proxy
   will determine through its own proprietary algorithms what the Target
   CoAP URI should be.

5.3.  Default Mapping

   The default mapping is for the Target CoAP URI to be appended as-is
   to the HC Proxy URI, to form the Hosting HTTP URI.  This is the URI
   that will then be sent by the HTTP client in the HTTP request to the
   HC proxy.






Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   For example: given a HC Proxy URI http://p.example.com/hc/ and a
   Target CoAP URI coap://s.example.com/light, the resulting Hosting
   HTTP URI would be http://p.example.com/hc/coap://s.example.com/light.

   Provided a correct Target CoAP URI, the Hosting HTTP URI resulting
   from the default mapping is always syntactically correct.
   Furthermore, the Target CoAP URI can always be extracted
   unambiguously from the Hosting HTTP URI.  Also, it is worth noting
   that, using the default mapping, a query component in the target CoAP
   resource URI is naturally encoded into the query component of the
   Hosting URI, e.g., coap://s.example.com/light?dim=5 becomes
   http://p.example.com/hc/coap://s.example.com/light?dim=5.

   There is no default for the HC Proxy URI.  Therefore, it is either
   known in advance, e.g., as a configuration preset, or dynamically
   discovered using the mechanism described in Section 5.5.

   The default URI mapping function SHOULD be implemented and SHOULD be
   activated by default in a HC proxy, unless there are valid reasons,
   e.g., application specific, to use a different mapping function.

5.3.1.  Optional Scheme Omission

   When found in a Hosting HTTP URI, the scheme (i.e., "coap" or
   "coaps"), the scheme component delimiter (":"), and the double slash
   ("//") preceding the authority MAY be omitted if a local default -
   not defined by this document - applies.  If no prior mutual agreement
   exists between the client and the HC proxy, then a Target CoAP URI
   without the scheme component is syntactically incorrect, and
   therefore:

   o  it MUST NOT be emitted by clients;

   o  it MUST elicit a suitable client error status (i.e., 4xx) by the
      HC proxy.

5.3.2.  Encoding Caveats

   When the authority of the Target CoAP URI is given as an IPv6address,
   then the surrounding square brackets must be percent-encoded in the
   Hosting HTTP URI, in order to comply with the syntax defined in
   Section 3.3. of [RFC3986] for a URI path segment.  E.g.:
   coap://[2001:db8::1]/light?on becomes
   http://p.example.com/hc/coap://%5B2001:db8::1%5D/light?on.  (Note
   that the percent-encoded square brackets shall be reverted to their
   non-percent-encoded form when the HC proxy unpacks the Target CoAP
   URI.)




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   Everything else can be safely copied verbatim from the Target CoAP
   URI to the Hosting HTTP URI.

5.4.  URI Mapping Template

   This section defines a format for the URI template [RFC6570] used by
   a HC proxy to inform its clients about the expected syntax for the
   Hosting HTTP URI.  This will then be used by the HTTP client to
   construct the URI to be sent in the HTTP request to the HC proxy.

   When instantiated, an URI Mapping Template is always concatenated to
   a HC Proxy URI provided by the HC proxy via discovery (see
   Section 5.5), or by other means.

   A simple form (Section 5.4.1) and an enhanced form (Section 5.4.2)
   are provided to fit different users' requirements.

   Both forms are expressed as level 2 URI templates [RFC6570] to take
   care of the expansion of values that are allowed to include reserved
   URI characters.  The syntax of all URI formats is specified in this
   section in Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234].

5.4.1.  Simple Form

   The simple form MUST be used for mappings where the Target CoAP URI
   is going to be copied (using rules of Section 5.3.2) at some fixed
   position into the Hosting HTTP URI.

   The "tu" template variable is intended to be used in a template
   definition to represent a Target CoAP URI:

     tu = [ ( "coap:" / "coaps:" ) "//" ] host [ ":" port ] path-abempty
          [ "?" query ]

   Note that the same considerations as in Section 5.3.1 apply, in that
   the CoAP scheme may be omitted from the Hosting HTTP URI.

5.4.1.1.  Examples

   All the following examples (given as a specific URI mapping template,
   a Target CoAP URI, and the produced Hosting HTTP URI) use
   http://p.example.com/hc/ as the HC Proxy URI.  Note that these
   examples all define mapping templates that deviate from the default
   template of Section 5.3 to be able to illustrate the use of the above
   template variables.

   1.  Target CoAP URI is a query argument of the Hosting HTTP URI:




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   ?target_uri={+tu}

   coap://s.example.com/light

   http://p.example.com/hc/?target_uri=coap://s.example.com/light

   or

   coaps://s.example.com/light

   http://p.example.com/hc/?target_uri=coaps://s.example.com/light


   2.  Target CoAP URI in the path component of the Hosting HTTP URI:


   forward/{+tu}

   coap://s.example.com/light

   http://p.example.com/hc/forward/coap://s.example.com/light

   or

   coaps://s.example.com/light

   http://p.example.com/hc/forward/coaps://s.example.com/light


   3.  "coap" URI is a query argument of the Hosting HTTP URI; client
       decides to omit scheme because a default scheme is agreed
       beforehand between client and proxy:


   ?coap_uri={+tu}

   coap://s.example.com/light

   http://p.example.com/hc/?coap_uri=s.example.com/light


5.4.2.  Enhanced Form

   The enhanced form can be used to express more sophisticated mappings
   of the Target CoAP URI into the Hosting HTTP URI, i.e., mappings that
   do not fit into the simple form.





Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   There MUST be at most one instance of each of the following template
   variables in a template definition:


     s  = "coap" / "coaps" ; from [RFC7252], Sections 6.1 and 6.2
     hp = host [":" port]  ; from [RFC3986], Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
     p  = path-abempty     ; from [RFC3986], Section 3.3
     q  = query            ; from [RFC3986], Section 3.4
     qq = [ "?" query ]    ; qq is empty if and only if 'query' is empty


   The qq form is used when the path and the (optional) query components
   are to be copied verbatim from the Target CoAP URI into the Hosting
   HTTP URI, i.e., as "{+p}{+qq}".  Instead, the q form is used when the
   query and path are mapped as separate entities, e.g., as in
   "coap_path={+p}&coap_query={+q}".

5.4.2.1.  Examples

   All the following examples (given as a specific URI mapping template,
   a Target CoAP URI, and the produced Hosting HTTP URI) use
   http://p.example.com/hc/ as the HC Proxy URI.

   1.  Target CoAP URI components in path segments, and optional query
       in query component:


       {+s}/{+hp}{+p}{+qq}

       coap://s.example.com/light

       http://p.example.com/hc/coap/s.example.com/light

       or

       coap://s.example.com/light?on

       http://p.example.com/hc/coap/s.example.com/light?on


   2.  Target CoAP URI components split in individual query arguments:










Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


       ?s={+s}&hp={+hp}&p={+p}&q={+q}

       coap://s.example.com/light

       http://p.example.com/hc/?s=coap&hp=s.example.com&p=/light&q=

       or

       coaps://s.example.com/light?on

       http://p.example.com/hc/?s=coaps&hp=s.example.com&p=/light&q=on


5.5.  Discovery

   In order to accommodate site specific needs while allowing third
   parties to discover the proxy function, the HC proxy SHOULD publish
   information related to the location and syntax of the HC proxy
   function using the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] interface.

   To this aim a new Resource Type, "core.hc", is defined in this
   document.  It can be used as the value for the "rt" attribute in a
   query to the /.well-known/core in order to locate the URI where the
   HC proxy function is anchored, i.e., the HC Proxy URI.

   Along with it, the new target attribute "hct" is defined in this
   document.  This attribute MAY be returned in a "core.hc" link to
   provide the URI Mapping Template associated to the mapping resource.
   The default template given in Section 5.3, i.e., {+tu}, MUST be
   assumed if no "hct" attribute is found in the returned link.  If a
   "hct" attribute is present in the returned link, then a client MUST
   use it to create the Hosting HTTP URI.

   The URI mapping SHOULD be discoverable (as specified in [RFC6690]) on
   both the HTTP and the CoAP side of the HC proxy, with one important
   difference: on the CoAP side the link associated to the "core.hc"
   resource needs an explicit anchor referring to the HTTP origin, while
   on the HTTP interface the link context is already the HTTP origin
   carried in the request's Host header, and doesn't have to be made
   explicit.

5.5.1.  Examples

   o  The first example exercises the CoAP interface, and assumes that
      the default template, {+tu}, is used.  For example, in use case #3
      in section Section 4, the smartphone may discover the public HC
      proxy before leaving the home network.  Then when outside the home




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


      network, the smartphone will be able to query the appropriate home
      sensor.


       Req:  GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.hc

       Res:  2.05 Content
             </hc/>;anchor="http://p.example.com";rt="core.hc"


   o  The second example - also on the CoAP side of the HC proxy - uses
      a custom template, i.e., one where the CoAP URI is carried inside
      the query component, thus the returned link carries the URI
      template to be used in an explicit "hct" attribute:


       Req:  GET coap://[ff02::1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.hc

       Res:  2.05 Content
             </hc/>;anchor="http://p.example.com";
             rt="core.hc";hct="?uri={+tu}"


   On the HTTP side, link information can be serialized in more than one
   way:

   o  using the 'application/link-format' content type:


       Req:  GET /.well-known/core?rt=core.hc HTTP/1.1
             Host: p.example.com

       Res:  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
             Content-Type: application/link-format
             Content-Length: 18

             </hc/>;rt="core.hc"


   o  using the 'application/link-format+json' content type as defined
      in [I-D.ietf-core-links-json]:










Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


       Req:  GET /.well-known/core?rt=core.hc HTTP/1.1
             Host: p.example.com

       Res:  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
             Content-Type: application/link-format+json
             Content-Length: 31

             [{"href":"/hc/","rt":"core.hc"}]


   o  using the Link header:


       Req:  GET /.well-known/core?rt=core.hc HTTP/1.1
             Host: p.example.com

       Res:  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
             Link: </hc/>;rt="core.hc"


6.  Media Type Mapping

6.1.  Overview

   A HC proxy needs to translate HTTP media types (Section 3.1.1.1 of
   [RFC7231]) and content encodings (Section 3.1.2.2 of [RFC7231]) into
   CoAP content formats (Section 12.3 of [RFC7252]) and vice versa.

   Media type translation can happen in GET, PUT or POST requests going
   from HTTP to CoAP, and in 2.xx (i.e., successful) responses going
   from CoAP to HTTP.  Specifically, PUT and POST need to map both the
   Content-Type and Content-Encoding HTTP headers into a single CoAP
   Content-Format option, whereas GET needs to map Accept and Accept-
   Encoding HTTP headers into a single CoAP Accept option.  To generate
   the HTTP response, the CoAP Content-Format option is mapped back to a
   suitable HTTP Content-Type and Content-Encoding combination.

   An HTTP request carrying a Content-Type and Content-Encoding
   combination which the HC proxy is unable to map to an equivalent CoAP
   Content-Format, SHALL elicit a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) response
   by the HC proxy.

   On the content negotiation side, failure to map Accept and Accept-*
   headers SHOULD be silently ignored: the HC proxy SHOULD therefore
   forward as a CoAP request with no Accept option.  The HC proxy thus
   disregards the Accept/Accept-* header fields by treating the response
   as if it is not subject to content negotiation, as mentioned in
   Sections 5.3.* of [RFC7231].  However, a HC proxy implementation is



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   free to attempt mapping a single Accept header in a GET request to
   multiple CoAP GET requests, each with a single Accept option, which
   are then tried in sequence until one succeeds.  Note that an HTTP
   Accept */* MUST be mapped to a CoAP request without Accept option.

   While the CoAP to HTTP direction has always a well defined mapping
   (with the exception examined in Section 6.2), the HTTP to CoAP
   direction is more problematic because the source set, i.e.,
   potentially 1000+ IANA registered media types, is much bigger than
   the destination set, i.e., the mere 6 values initially defined in
   Section 12.3 of [RFC7252].

   Depending on the tight/loose coupling with the application(s) for
   which it proxies, the HC proxy could implement different media type
   mappings.

   When tightly coupled, the HC proxy knows exactly which content
   formats are supported by the applications, and can be strict when
   enforcing its forwarding policies in general, and the media type
   mapping in particular.

   On the other side, when the HC proxy is a general purpose application
   layer gateway, being too strict could significantly reduce the amount
   of traffic that it would be able to successfully forward.  In this
   case, the "loose" media type mapping detailed in Section 6.3 MAY be
   implemented.

   The latter grants more evolution of the surrounding ecosystem, at the
   cost of allowing more attack surface.  In fact, as a result of such
   strategy, payloads would be forwarded more liberally across the
   unconstrained/constrained network boundary of the communication path.
   Therefore, when applied, some form of access control must be set in
   place to avoid unauthorized users to deplete or abuse systems and
   network resources.

6.2.  'application/coap-payload' Media Type

   If the HC proxy receives a CoAP response with a Content-Format that
   it does not recognize (e.g., because the value has been registered
   after the proxy has been deployed, or the CoAP server uses an
   experimental value which is not registered), then the HC proxy SHALL
   return a generic "application/coap-payload" media type with numeric
   parameter "cf" as defined in Section 9.2.

   For example, the CoAP content format '60' ("application/cbor") would
   be represented by "application/coap-payload;cf=60", if the HC Proxy
   doesn't recognize the content format '60'.




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   A HTTP client may use the media type "application/coap-payload" as a
   means to send a specific content format to a CoAP server via a HC
   Proxy if the client has determined that the HC Proxy does not
   directly support the type mapping it needs.  This case may happen
   when dealing for example with newly registered, yet to be registered,
   or experimental CoAP content formats.  However, unless explicitly
   configured to allow pass-through of unknown content formats, the HC
   proxy SHOULD NOT forward requests carrying a Content-Type or Accept
   header with an "application/coap-payload", and return an appropriate
   client error instead.

6.3.  Loose Media Type Mapping

   By structuring the type information in a super-class (e.g., "text")
   followed by a finer grained sub-class (e.g., "html"), and optional
   parameters (e.g., "charset=utf-8"), Internet media types provide a
   rich and scalable framework for encoding the type of any given
   entity.

   This approach is not applicable to CoAP, where Content Formats
   conflate an Internet media type (potentially with specific
   parameters) and a content encoding into one small integer value.

   To remedy this loss of flexibility, we introduce the concept of a
   "loose" media type mapping, where media types that are
   specializations of a more generic media type can be aliased to their
   super-class and then mapped (if possible) to one of the CoAP content
   formats.  For example, "application/soap+xml" can be aliased to
   "application/xml", which has a known conversion to CoAP.  In the
   context of this "loose" media type mapping, "application/octet-
   stream" can be used as a fallback when no better alias is found for a
   specific media type.

   Table 1 defines the default lookup table for the "loose" media type
   mapping.  It is expected that an implementation can refine it either
   given application-specific knowledge, or because new Content-Formats
   are defined.  Given an input media type, the table returns its best
   generalized media type using the most specific match i.e., the table
   entries are compared to the input in top to bottom order until an
   entry matches.











Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


            +---------------------+--------------------------+
            | Internet media type | Generalized media type   |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+
            | application/*+xml   | application/xml          |
            | application/*+json  | application/json         |
            | text/xml            | application/xml          |
            | text/*              | text/plain               |
            | */*                 | application/octet-stream |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+

              Table 1: Media type generalization lookup table

   The "loose" media type mapping is an OPTIONAL feature.
   Implementations supporting this kind of mapping should provide a
   flexible way to define the set of media type generalizations allowed.

6.4.  Media Type to Content Format Mapping Algorithm

   This section defines the algorithm used to map an HTTP Internet media
   type to its correspondent CoAP content format.

   The algorithm uses the mapping table defined in Section 12.3 of
   [RFC7252] plus, possibly, any locally defined extension of it.
   Optionally, the table and lookup mechanism described in Section 6.3
   can be used if the implementation chooses so.

   Note that the algorithm may have side effects on the associated
   representation (see also Section 6.5).

   In the following:

   o  C-T, C-E, and C-F stand for the values of the Content-Type (or
      Accept) HTTP header, Content-Encoding (or Accept-Encoding) HTTP
      header, and Content-Format CoAP option respectively.

   o  If C-E is not given it is assumed to be "identity".

   o  MAP is the mandatory lookup table, GMAP is the optional
      generalized table.












Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


           INPUT:  C-T and C-E
           OUTPUT: C-F or Fail

           1.  if no C-T: return Fail
           2.  C-F = MAP[C-T, C-E]
           3.  if C-F is not None: return C-F
           4.  if C-E is not "identity":
           5.    if C-E is supported (e.g., gzip):
           6.      decode the representation accordingly
           7.      set C-E to "identity"
           8.    else:
           9.      return Fail
           10. repeat steps 2. and 3.
           11. if C-T allows a non-lossy transformation into \
           12.    one of the supported C-F:
           13.      transcode the representation accordingly
           14.      return C-F
           15. if GMAP is defined:
           16.   C-F = GMAP[C-T]
           17.   if C-F is not None: return C-F
           18. return Fail

                                 Figure 2

6.5.  Content Transcoding

6.5.1.  General

   Payload content transcoding (e.g., see steps 11-14 of Figure 2) is an
   OPTIONAL feature.  Implementations supporting this feature should
   provide a flexible way to define the set of transcodings allowed.

   As noted in Section 6.4, the process of mapping the media type can
   have side effects on the forwarded entity body.  This may be caused
   by the removal or addition of a specific content encoding, or because
   the HC proxy decides to transcode the representation to a different
   (compatible) format.  The latter proves useful when an optimized
   version of a specific format exists.  For example a XML-encoded
   resource could be transcoded to Efficient XML Interchange (EXI)
   format, or a JSON-encoded resource into CBOR [RFC7049], effectively
   achieving compression without losing any information.

   However, there are at least two important factors to keep in mind
   when implementing and enabling a transcoding function:

   1.  Maliciously crafted inputs coming from the HTTP side might
       inflate in size (see for example Section 4.2 of [RFC7049]),




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


       therefore creating a security threat for both the HC proxy and
       the target resource;

   2.  Transcoding can lose information in non-obvious ways.  For
       example, encoding a XML document using schema-informed EXI
       encoding leads to a loss of information when the destination does
       not know the exact schema version used by the encoder.  That
       means that whenever the HC proxy transcodes an application/XML to
       application/EXI in-band metadata could be lost.

   It is crucial that these risks are well understood and carefully
   weighed against the actual benefits before deploying the transcoding
   function.

6.5.2.  CoRE Link Format

   The CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] is a set of links (i.e., URIs and
   their formal relationships) which is carried as content payload in a
   CoAP response.  These links usually include CoAP URIs that might be
   translated by the HC proxy to the correspondent HTTP URIs using the
   implemented URI mapping function (see Section 5).  Such a process
   would inspect the forwarded traffic and attempt to re-write the body
   of resources with an application/link-format media type, mapping the
   embedded CoAP URIs to their HTTP counterparts.  Some potential issues
   with this approach are:

   1.  The client may be interested to retrieve original (unaltered)
       CoAP payloads through the HC proxy, not modified versions.

   2.  Tampering with payloads is incompatible with resources that are
       integrity protected (although this is a problem with transcoding
       in general).

   3.  The HC proxy needs to fully understand [RFC6690] syntax and
       semantics, otherwise there is an inherent risk to corrupt the
       payloads.

   Therefore, CoRE Link Format payload should only be transcoded at the
   risk and discretion of the proxy implementer.

6.5.3.  Diagnostic Messages

   CoAP responses may, in certain error cases, contain a diagnostic
   message in the payload explaining the error situation, as described
   in Section 5.5.2 of [RFC7252].  If present, the CoAP response
   diagnostic payload SHOULD be copied in the HTTP response body.  The
   CoAP diagnostic message MUST NOT be copied into the HTTP reason-




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   phrase, since it potentially contains CR-LF characters which are
   incompatible with HTTP reason-phrase syntax.

7.  Response Code Mapping

   Table 2 defines the HTTP response status codes to which each CoAP
   response code SHOULD be mapped.  Multiple appearances of a HTTP
   status code in the second column indicates multiple equivalent HTTP
   responses are possible based on the same CoAP response code,
   depending on the conditions cited in the Notes (third column and text
   below table).

   +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+-------+
   | CoAP Response Code          | HTTP Status Code            | Notes |
   +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+-------+
   | 2.01 Created                | 201 Created                 | 1     |
   | 2.02 Deleted                | 200 OK                      | 2     |
   |                             | 204 No Content              | 2     |
   | 2.03 Valid                  | 304 Not Modified            | 3     |
   |                             | 200 OK                      | 4     |
   | 2.04 Changed                | 200 OK                      | 2     |
   |                             | 204 No Content              | 2     |
   | 2.05 Content                | 200 OK                      |       |
   | 4.00 Bad Request            | 400 Bad Request             |       |
   | 4.01 Unauthorized           | 403 Forbidden               | 5     |
   | 4.02 Bad Option             | 400 Bad Request             | 6     |
   | 4.02 Bad Option             | 500 Internal Server Error   | 6     |
   | 4.03 Forbidden              | 403 Forbidden               |       |
   | 4.04 Not Found              | 404 Not Found               |       |
   | 4.05 Method Not Allowed     | 400 Bad Request             | 7     |
   | 4.06 Not Acceptable         | 406 Not Acceptable          |       |
   | 4.12 Precondition Failed    | 412 Precondition Failed     |       |
   | 4.13 Request Ent. Too Large | 413 Request Repr. Too Large |       |
   | 4.15 Unsupported Media Type | 415 Unsupported Media Type  |       |
   | 5.00 Internal Server Error  | 500 Internal Server Error   |       |
   | 5.01 Not Implemented        | 501 Not Implemented         |       |
   | 5.02 Bad Gateway            | 502 Bad Gateway             |       |
   | 5.03 Service Unavailable    | 503 Service Unavailable     | 8     |
   | 5.04 Gateway Timeout        | 504 Gateway Timeout         |       |
   | 5.05 Proxying Not Supported | 502 Bad Gateway             | 9     |
   +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+-------+

                 Table 2: CoAP-HTTP Response Code Mappings

   Notes:

   1.  A CoAP server may return an arbitrary format payload along with
       this response.  If present, this payload MUST be returned as



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


       entity in the HTTP 201 response.  Section 7.3.2 of [RFC7231] does
       not put any requirement on the format of the entity.  (In the
       past, [RFC2616] did.)

   2.  The HTTP code is 200 or 204 respectively for the case that a CoAP
       server returns a payload or not.  [RFC7231] Section 5.3 requires
       code 200 in case a representation of the action result is
       returned for DELETE/POST/PUT, and code 204 if not.  Hence, a
       proxy MUST transfer any CoAP payload contained in a CoAP 2.02
       response to the HTTP client using a 200 OK response.

   3.  HTTP code 304 (Not Modified) is sent if the HTTP client performed
       a conditional HTTP request and the CoAP server responded with
       2.03 (Valid) to the corresponding CoAP validation request.  Note
       that Section 4.1 of [RFC7232] puts some requirements on header
       fields that must be present in the HTTP 304 response.

   4.  A 200 response to a CoAP 2.03 occurs only when the HC proxy, for
       efficiency reasons, is running a local cache.  An unconditional
       HTTP GET which produces a cache-hit, could trigger a re-
       validation (i.e., a conditional GET) on the CoAP side.  The proxy
       receiving 2.03 updates the freshness of its cached representation
       and returns it to the HTTP client.

   5.  A HTTP 401 Unauthorized (Section 3.1 of [RFC7235]) response is
       not applicable because there is no equivalent in CoAP of WWW-
       Authenticate which is mandatory in a HTTP 401 response.

   6.  If the proxy has a way to determine that the Bad Option is due to
       the straightforward mapping of a client request header into a
       CoAP option, then returning HTTP 400 (Bad Request) is
       appropriate.  In all other cases, the proxy MUST return HTTP 500
       (Internal Server Error) stating its inability to provide a
       suitable translation to the client's request.

   7.  A CoAP 4.05 (Method Not Allowed) response SHOULD normally be
       mapped to a HTTP 400 (Bad Request) code, because the HTTP 405
       response would require specifying the supported methods - which
       are generally unknown.  In this case the HC Proxy SHOULD also
       return a HTTP reason-phrase in the HTTP status line that starts
       with the string "CoAP server returned 4.05" in order to
       facilitate troubleshooting.  However, if the HC proxy has more
       granular information about the supported methods for the
       requested resource (e.g., via a Resource Directory
       ([I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory])) then it MAY send back a
       HTTP 405 (Method Not Allowed) with a properly filled in "Allow"
       response-header field (Section 7.4.1 of [RFC7231]).




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   8.  The value of the HTTP "Retry-After" response-header field is
       taken from the value of the CoAP Max-Age Option, if present.

   9.  This CoAP response can only happen if the proxy itself is
       configured to use a CoAP forward-proxy (Section 5.7 of [RFC7252])
       to execute some, or all, of its CoAP requests.

8.  Additional Mapping Guidelines

8.1.  Caching and Congestion Control

   A HC proxy should cache CoAP responses, and reply whenever applicable
   with a cached representation of the requested resource.

   If the HTTP client drops the connection after the HTTP request was
   made, a HC proxy should wait for the associated CoAP response and
   cache it if possible.  Subsequent requests to the HC proxy for the
   same resource can use the result present in cache, or, if a response
   has still to come, the HTTP requests will wait on the open CoAP
   request.

   According to [RFC7252], a proxy must limit the number of outstanding
   requests to a given CoAP server to NSTART.  To limit the amount of
   aggregate traffic to a constrained network, the HC proxy should also
   put a limit on the number of concurrent CoAP requests pending on the
   same constrained network; further incoming requests may either be
   queued or dropped (returning 503 Service Unavailable).  This limit
   and the proxy queueing/dropping behavior should be configurable.

   Highly volatile resources that are being frequently requested may be
   observed [RFC7641] by the HC proxy to keep their cached
   representation fresh while minimizing the amount of CoAP traffic in
   the constrained network.  See Section 8.2.

8.2.  Cache Refresh via Observe

   There are cases where using the CoAP observe protocol [RFC7641] to
   handle proxy cache refresh is preferable to the validation mechanism
   based on ETag as defined in [RFC7252].  Such scenarios include, but
   are not limited to, sleepy CoAP nodes -- with possibly high variance
   in requests' distribution -- which would greatly benefit from a
   server driven cache update mechanism.  Ideal candidates for CoAP
   observe are also crowded or very low throughput networks, where
   reduction of the total number of exchanged messages is an important
   requirement.

   This subsection aims at providing a practical evaluation method to
   decide whether refreshing a cached resource R is more efficiently



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   handled via ETag validation or by establishing an observation on R.
   The idea being that the HC proxy proactively installs an observation
   on a "popular enough" resource and actively monitors:

   a.  Its update pattern on the CoAP side; and

   b.  The request pattern on the HTTP side;

   and uses the formula below to determine whether the observation
   should be kept alive or shut down.

   Let T_R be the mean time between two client requests to resource R,
   let T_C be the mean time between two representation changes of R, and
   let M_R be the mean number of CoAP messages per second exchanged to
   and from resource R.  If we assume that the initial cost for
   establishing the observation is negligible, an observation on R
   reduces M_R if and only if T_R < 2*T_C with respect to using ETag
   validation, that is if and only if the mean arrival rate of requests
   for resource R is greater than half the change rate of R.

   When observing the resource R, M_R is always upper bounded by 2/T_C.

8.3.  Use of CoAP Blockwise Transfer

   A HC proxy SHOULD support CoAP blockwise transfers [RFC7959] to allow
   transport of large CoAP payloads while avoiding excessive link-layer
   fragmentation in constrained networks, and to cope with small
   datagram buffers in CoAP end-points as described in [RFC7252]
   Section 4.6.

   A HC proxy SHOULD attempt to retry a payload-carrying CoAP PUT or
   POST request with blockwise transfer if the destination CoAP server
   responded with 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) to the original
   request.  A HC proxy SHOULD attempt to use blockwise transfer when
   sending a CoAP PUT or POST request message that is larger than
   BLOCKWISE_THRESHOLD bytes.  The value of BLOCKWISE_THRESHOLD is
   implementation-specific, for example it can be:

   o  calculated based on a known or typical UDP datagram buffer size
      for CoAP end-points, or

   o  set to N times the known size of a link-layer frame in a
      constrained network where e.g., N=5, or

   o  preset to a known IP MTU value, or

   o  set to a known Path MTU value.




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   The value BLOCKWISE_THRESHOLD, or the parameters from which it is
   calculated, should be configurable in a proxy implementation.  The
   maximum block size the proxy will attempt to use in CoAP requests
   should also be configurable.

   The HC proxy SHOULD detect CoAP end-points not supporting blockwise
   transfers.  This can be done by checking for a 4.02 (Bad Option)
   response returned by an end-point in response to a CoAP request with
   a Block* Option, and subsequent absence of the 4.02 in response to
   the same request without Block* Options.  This allows the HC proxy to
   be more efficient, not attempting repeated blockwise transfers to
   CoAP servers that do not support it.

8.4.  CoAP Multicast

   A HC proxy MAY support CoAP multicast.  If it does, the HC proxy
   sends out a multicast CoAP request if the Target CoAP URI's authority
   is a multicast IP literal or resolves to a multicast IP address.  If
   the HC proxy does not support CoAP multicast, it SHOULD respond 403
   (Forbidden) to any valid HTTP request that maps to a CoAP multicast
   request.

   Details related to supporting CoAP multicast are currently out of
   scope of this document since in a proxy scenario a HTTP client
   typically expects to receive a single response, not multiple.
   However, a HC proxy that implements CoAP multicast may include
   application-specific functions to aggregate multiple CoAP responses
   into a single HTTP response.  We suggest using the "application/http"
   internet media type (Section 8.3.2 of [RFC7230]) to enclose a set of
   one or more HTTP response messages, each representing the mapping of
   one CoAP response.

   For further considerations related to the handling of multicast
   requests, see Section 10.1.

8.5.  Timeouts

   If the CoAP server takes a long time in responding, the HTTP client
   or any other proxy in between may timeout.  Further discussion of
   timeouts in HTTP is available in Section 6.2.4 of [RFC7230].

   A HC proxy MUST define an internal timeout for each pending CoAP
   request, because the CoAP server may silently die before completing
   the request.  Assuming the Proxy uses confirmable CoAP requests, such
   timeout value T SHOULD be at least

   T = MAX_RTT + MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   where MAX_RTT is defined in [RFC7252] and MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY
   is defined in [RFC7390].

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  New 'core.hc' Resource Type

   This document registers a new Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
   Attribute, 'core.hc', in the "Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
   Attribute Values" subregistry under the "Constrained RESTful
   Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry.

   Attribute Value: core.hc

   Description: HTTP to CoAP mapping base resource.

   Reference: See Section 5.5.

9.2.  New 'coap-payload' Internet Media Type

   This document defines the "application/coap-payload" media type with
   a single parameter "cf".  This media type represents any payload that
   a CoAP message can carry, having a content format that can be
   identified by an integer in range 0-65535 corresponding to a CoAP
   Content-Format parameter ([RFC7252], Section 12.3).  The parameter
   "cf" is the integer defining the CoAP content format.

   Type name: application

   Subtype name: coap-payload

   Required parameters: cf (CoAP Content-Format integer in range 0-65535
   denoting the content format of the CoAP payload carried, as defined
   by the "CoAP Content-Formats" subregistry that is part of the
   "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry.)

   Optional parameters: None

   Encoding considerations: Common use is BINARY.  The specific CoAP
   content format encoding considerations for the selected Content-
   Format (cf parameter) apply.  The encoding can vary based on the
   value of the cf parameter.

   Security considerations: The specific CoAP content format security
   considerations for the selected Content-Format (cf parameter) apply.






Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   Interoperability considerations: This media type can never be used
   directly in CoAP messages because there is no means available to
   encode the mandatory 'cf' parameter in CoAP.

   Published specification: (this I-D - TBD)

   Applications that use this media type: HTTP-to-CoAP Proxies.

   Fragment identifier considerations: CoAP does not support URI
   fragments; therefore a CoAP payload fragment cannot be identified.
   Fragments are not applicable for this media type.

   Additional information:

      Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A

      Magic number(s): N/A

      File extension(s): N/A

      Macintosh file type code(s): N/A

   Person and email address to contact for further information:

      Esko Dijk ("esko@ieee.org")

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:

   An application (or user) can only use this media type if it has to
   represent a CoAP payload of which the specified CoAP Content-Format
   is an unrecognized number; such that a proper translation directly to
   the equivalent HTTP media type is not possible.

   Author: CoRE WG

   Change controller: IETF

   Provisional registration: No

10.  Security Considerations

   The security concerns raised in Section 9.2 of [RFC7230] also apply
   to the HC proxy scenario.

   A HC proxy deployed at the boundary of a constrained network is an
   easy single point of failure for reducing availability.  As such,



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   special care should be taken in designing, developing and operating
   it, keeping in mind that, in most cases, it has fewer limitations
   than the constrained devices it is serving.

   The correctness of the request parsing in general (including any
   content transcoding), and of the URI translation process in
   particular, is essential to the security of the HC proxy function.
   This is especially true when the internal network hosts devices with
   genuinely limited capabilities.  The quality of implementation and
   operation -- i.e., careful implementation and/or selection of the
   third party libraries, sane configuration defaults, an expedite way
   to upgrade a running instance, etc. - is therefore an essential
   attribute of the HC proxy.  For this purpose, see also Sections 9.3,
   9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 of [RFC7230] for well known issues related to HTTP
   request parsing, and section 11.1 of [RFC7252] for an overview of
   CoAP specific concerns related to URI processing -- in particular the
   potential fall-out on access control logics.

   The following sub paragraphs categorize and discuss a set of specific
   security issues related to the translation, caching and forwarding
   functionality exposed by a HC proxy.

10.1.  Multicast

   Multicast requests impose a non-trivial cost on the constrained
   network and endpoints, and might be exploited as a DoS attack vector
   (see also Section 10.2).  From a privacy perspective, they can be
   used to gather detailed information about the resources hosted in the
   constrained network.  For example, an outsider that is able to
   successfully query the /.well-known/core could obtain a comprehensive
   list of the target's home appliances and devices.  From a security
   perspective, they can be used to carry out a network reconnaissance
   attack to gather information about possible vulnerabilities that
   could be exploited at a later point in time.  For these reasons, it
   is RECOMMENDED that requests to multicast resources are access
   controlled with a default-deny policy.  It is RECOMMENDED that the
   requestor of a multicast resource be strongly authenticated.  If
   privacy and / or security are first class requirements, for example
   whenever the HTTP request transits through the public Internet, the
   request SHOULD be transported over a mutually authenticated and
   encrypted TLS connection.

10.2.  Traffic Overflow

   Due to the typically constrained nature of CoAP nodes, particular
   attention should be given to the implementation of traffic reduction
   mechanisms (see Section 8.1), because inefficient proxy




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   implementations can be targeted by unconstrained Internet attackers.
   Bandwidth or complexity involved in such attacks is very low.

   An amplification attack to the constrained network may be triggered
   by a multicast request generated by a single HTTP request which is
   mapped to a CoAP multicast resource, as discussed in Section 11.3 of
   [RFC7252].

   The risk likelihood of this amplification technique is higher than an
   amplification attack carried out by a malicious constrained device
   (e.g., ICMPv6 flooding, like Packet Too Big, or Parameter Problem on
   a multicast destination [RFC4732]), since it does not require direct
   access to the constrained network.

   The feasibility of this attack which disrupts availability of the
   targeted CoAP server can be limited by access controlling the exposed
   multicast resources, so that only known/authorized users can access
   such URIs.

10.3.  Handling Secured Exchanges

   An HTTP request can be sent to the HC proxy over a secured
   connection.  However, there may not always exist a secure connection
   mapping to CoAP.  For example, a secure distribution method for
   multicast traffic is complex and may not be implemented (see
   [RFC7390]).

   A HC proxy should implement rules for security context translations.
   For example all "https" unicast requests are translated to "coaps"
   requests, or "https" requests are translated to unsecured "coap"
   requests.  Another rule could specify the security policy and
   parameters used for DTLS sessions [RFC7925].  Such rules will largely
   depend on the application and network context in which the HC proxy
   operates.  These rules should be configurable.

   It is RECOMMENDED that, by default, accessing a "coaps" URI is only
   allowed from a corresponding "https" URI.

   By default, a HC proxy SHOULD reject any secured CoAP client request
   (i.e., one with a "coaps" scheme) if there is no configured security
   policy mapping.  This recommendation may be relaxed in case the
   destination network is believed to be secured by other means.
   Assuming that CoAP nodes are isolated behind a firewall as in the HC
   proxy deployment shown in Figure 1, the HC proxy may be configured to
   translate the incoming HTTPS request using plain CoAP (NoSec mode).






Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


10.4.  URI Mapping

   The following risks related to the URI mapping described in Section 5
   and its use by HC proxies have been identified:

   DoS attack on the constrained/CoAP network.
      Mitigation: by default deny any Target CoAP URI whose authority is
      (or maps to) a multicast address.  Then explicitly white-list
      multicast resources/authorities that are allowed to be de-
      referenced.  See also Section 8.4.

   Leaking information on the constrained/CoAP network resources and
   topology.
      Mitigation: by default deny any Target CoAP URI (especially
      /.well-known/core is a resource to be protected), and then
      explicitly white-list resources that are allowed to be seen from
      outside.

   The internal CoAP Target resource is totally transparent from
   outside.
      Mitigation: implement a HTTPS-only interface, which makes the
      Target CoAP URI totally opaque to a passive attacker.

11.  Acknowledgments

   An initial version of Table 2 in Section 7 has been provided in
   revision -05 of the CoRE CoAP I-D.  Special thanks to Peter van der
   Stok for countless comments and discussions on this document, that
   contributed to its current structure and text.

   Thanks to Abhijan Bhattacharyya, Alexey Melnikov, Brian Frank,
   Carsten Bormann, Christian Amsuess, Christian Groves, Cullen
   Jennings, Dorothy Gellert, Francesco Corazza, Francis Dupont, Hannes
   Tschofenig, Jaime Jimenez, Kathleen Moriarty, Kepeng Li, Kerry Lynn,
   Klaus Hartke, Linyi Tian, Michele Rossi, Michele Zorzi, Nicola Bui,
   Peter Saint-Andre, Sean Leonard, Spencer Dawkins, Stephen Farrell,
   Suresh Krishnan, Zach Shelby for helpful comments and discussions
   that have shaped the document.

   The research leading to these results has received funding from the
   European Community's Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013]
   under grant agreement n.251557.

12.  References







Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.






Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.

   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-links-json]
              Li, K., Rahman, A., and C. Bormann, "Representing CoRE
              Formats in JSON and CBOR", draft-ietf-core-links-json-06
              (work in progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory]
              Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and P. Stok, "CoRE
              Resource Directory", draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-08
              (work in progress), July 2016.

   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC3040]  Cooper, I., Melve, I., and G. Tomlinson, "Internet Web
              Replication and Caching Taxonomy", RFC 3040,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3040, January 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3040>.

   [RFC4732]  Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet
              Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4732, December 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4732>.

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.





Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   [RFC7390]  Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.

   [RFC7925]  Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>.

   [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]
              Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T.,
              Navara, E., O'Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5", W3C
              Recommendation REC-html5-20141028, 2014,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   [Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.]

   Changes from ietf-14 to ietf-15 (IESG review):

   o  Kathleen Moriarty's DISCUSS and COMMENT;

   o  Stephen Farrell's COMMENT;

   o  Suresh Krishnan DISCUSS;

   o  Spencer Dawkins' DISCUSS and COMMENT;

   Changes from ietf-13 to ietf-14:

   o  Addressed Gen-ART and AD review comments.

   Changes from ietf-12 to ietf-13 (Christian Amsuess' comments):

   o  More missing slashes in URI mapping template examples.

   Changes from ietf-11 to ietf-12 (2nd WGLC):

   o  Addressed a few editorial issues (including a clarification on
      when to use qq vs q in the URI mapping template).

   o  Fixed missing slash in one template example.

   o  Added para about the need for future CoAP protocol elements to
      define their own HTTP mappings.



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   Changes from ietf-10 to ietf-11 (Chair review):

   o  Removed cu/su distinction from the URI mapping template.

   o  Addressed a few editorial issues.

   Changes from ietf-09 to ietf-10:

   o  Addressed Ticket #401 - Clarified that draft covers not only
      Reverse HC Proxy but that many parts also apply to Forward and
      Interception Proxies.

   o  Clarified that draft concentrates on the HTTP-to-CoAP mapping
      direction (i.e., the HC proxy is a HTTP server and a CoAP client).

   o  Clarified the "null mapping" case where no CoAP URI information is
      embedded in the HTTP request URI.

   o  Moved multicast related security text to the "Security
      Considerations" to consolidate all security information in one
      location.

   o  Removed references to "placement" of proxy (e.g., server-side vs
      client-side) as is confusing and provides little added value.

   o  Fixed version numbers on references that were corrupted in last
      revision due to outdated xml2rfc conversion tool local cache.

   o  Various editorial improvements.

   Changes from ietf-08 to ietf-09:

   o  Clean up requirements language as per Klaus' comment.

   Changes from ietf-07 to ietf-08:

   o  Addressed WGLC review comments from Klaus Hartke as per the
      correspondence of March 9, 2016 on the CORE WG mailing list.

   Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07:

   o  Addressed Ticket #384 - Section 5.4.1 describes briefly
      (informative) how to discover CoAP resources from an HTTP client.

   o  Addressed Ticket #378 - For HTTP media type to CoAP content format
      mapping and vice versa: a new draft (TBD) may be proposed in CoRE
      which describes an approach for automatic updating of the media




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


      type mapping.  This was noted in Section 6.1 but is otherwise
      outside the scope of this draft.

   o  Addressed Ticket #377 - Added IANA section that defines a new HTTP
      media type "application/coap-payload" and created new Section 6.2
      on how to use it.

   o  Addressed Ticket #376 - Updated Table 2 (and corresponding note 7)
      to indicate that a CoAP 4.05 (Method Not Allowed) Response Code
      should be mapped to a HTTP 400 (Bad Request).

   o  Added note to comply to ABNF when translating CoAP diagnostic
      payload to reason-phrase in Section 6.5.3.

   Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06:

   o  Fully restructured the draft, bringing introductory text more to
      the front and allocating main sections to each of the key topics;
      addressing Ticket #379;

   o  Addressed Ticket #382, fix of enhanced form URI template
      definition of q in Section 5.3.2;

   o  Addressed Ticket #381, found a mapping 4.01 to 401 Unauthorized in
      Section 7;

   o  Addressed Ticket #380 (Add IANA registration for "core.hc"
      Resource Type) in Section 9;

   o  Addressed Ticket #376 (CoAP 4.05 response can't be translated to
      HTTP 405 by HC proxy) in Section 7 by use of empty 'Allow' header;

   o  Removed details on the pros and cons of HC proxy placement
      options;

   o  Addressed review comments of Carsten Bormann;

   o  Clarified failure in mapping of HTTP Accept headers (Section 6.3);

   o  Clarified detection of CoAP servers not supporting blockwise
      (Section 8.3);

   o  Changed CoAP request timeout min value to MAX_RTT +
      MAX_SERVER_RESPONSE_DELAY (Section 8.6);

   o  Added security section item (Section 10.3) related to use of CoAP
      blockwise transfers;




Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   o  Many editorial improvements.

   Changes from ietf-04 to ietf-05:

   o  Addressed Ticket #366 (Mapping of CoRE Link Format payloads to be
      valid in HTTP Domain?) in Section 6.3.3.2 (Content Transcoding -
      CORE Link Format);

   o  Addressed Ticket #375 (Add requirement on mapping of CoAP
      diagnostic payload) in Section 6.3.3.3 (Content Transcoding -
      Diagnostic Messages);

   o  Addressed comment from Yusuke (http://www.ietf.org/mail-
      archive/web/core/current/msg05491.html) in Section 6.3.3.1
      (Content Transcoding - General);

   o  Various editorial improvements.

   Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-04:

   o  Expanded use case descriptions in Section 4;

   o  Fixed/enhanced discovery examples in Section 5.4.1;

   o  Addressed Ticket #365 (Add text on media type conversion by HTTP-
      CoAP proxy) in new Section 6.3.1 (Generalized media type mapping)
      and new Section 6.3.2 (Content translation);

   o  Updated HTTPBis WG draft references to recently published RFC
      numbers.

   o  Various editorial improvements.

   Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03:

   o  Closed Ticket #351 "Add security implications of proposed default
      HTTP-CoAP URI mapping";

   o  Closed Ticket #363 "Remove CoAP scheme in default HTTP-CoAP URI
      mapping";

   o  Closed Ticket #364 "Add discovery of HTTP-CoAP mapping
      resource(s)".

   Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02:

   o  Selection of single default URI mapping proposal as proposed to WG
      mailing list 2013-10-09.



Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01:

   o  Added URI mapping proposals to Section 4 as per the Email
      proposals to WG mailing list from Esko.

Authors' Addresses

   Angelo P. Castellani
   University of Padova
   Via Gradenigo 6/B
   Padova  35131
   Italy

   Email: angelo@castellani.net


   Salvatore Loreto
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com


   Akbar Rahman
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   1000 Sherbrooke Street West
   Montreal  H3A 3G4
   Canada

   Phone: +1 514 585 0761
   Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com


   Thomas Fossati
   Nokia
   3 Ely Road
   Milton, Cambridge  CB24 6DD
   UK

   Email: thomas.fossati@nokia.com









Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft            HTTP-to-CoAP Mapping              October 2016


   Esko Dijk
   Philips Lighting
   High Tech Campus 7
   Eindhoven  5656 AE
   The Netherlands

   Email: esko.dijk@philips.com












































Castellani, et al.        Expires April 6, 2017                [Page 38]


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