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

Versions: (draft-bosh-core-new-block) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 09 10

CORE                                                        M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                              J. Shallow
Expires: March 27, 2021                               September 23, 2020


Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options for
                          Faster Transmission
                      draft-ietf-core-new-block-01

Abstract

   This document specifies alternate Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) Block-Wise transfer options: Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2
   Options.

   These options are similar to the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options, not
   a replacement for them, but do enable faster transmission rates for
   large amounts of data with less packet interchanges as well as
   supporting faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in
   transmission.

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 https://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 March 27, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Existing CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Alternative CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options  . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  An Updated CoAP Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Applicability Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  The Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Properties of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options . . .   6
     3.2.  Structure of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options  . . .   7
     3.3.  Using the Quick-Block1 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Using the Quick-Block2 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  Working with Observe and Quick-Block2 Options . . . . . .  10
     3.6.  Working with Size1 and Size2 Options  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.7.  Use of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options Together . .  11
   4.  The Use of 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code . .  11
   5.  The Use of Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Caching Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Examples of Selective Block Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Quick-Block1 Option: Non-Confirmable Example  . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Quick-Block2 Option: Non-Confirmable Example  . . . . . .  16
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  New CoAP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  New Content Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.1.  Quick-Block1 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     A.2.  Quick-Block2 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction







Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


1.1.  Existing CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], although
   inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP.  The
   message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable
   delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.  [RFC7959]
   introduced the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options to handle data records
   that cannot fit in a single IP packet, so not having to rely on IP
   fragmentation and further updated by [RFC8323] for use over TCP, TLS,
   and Websockets.

   The CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options work well in environments where
   there are no or minimal packet losses.  These options operate
   synchronously where each block has to be requested and can only ask
   for (or send) the next block when the request for the previous block
   has completed.  Packet, and hence block transmission rate, is
   controlled by Round Trip Times (RTTs).

   There is a requirement for these blocks of data to be transmitted at
   higher rates under network conditions where there may be asymmetrical
   transient packet loss.  An example is when a network is subject to a
   Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack and there is a need for
   DDoS mitigation agents relying upon CoAP to communicate with each
   other (e.g., [I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]).  As a reminder, [RFC7959]
   recommends use of Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential
   packet loss; which does not work with a flooded pipe DDoS situation.

1.2.  Alternative CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options

   This document introduces the CoAP Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2
   Options.  These options are similar in operation to the CoAP Block1
   and Block2 Options respectively, they are not a replacement for them,
   but have the following benefits:

   o  They can operate in environments where packet loss is highly
      asymmetrical.

   o  They enable faster transmissions of sets of blocks of data with
      less packet interchanges.

   o  They support faster recovery should any of the Blocks get lost in
      transmission.

   There are the following disadvantages over using CoAP Block 1 and
   Block2 Options:

   o  Loss of lock-stepping so payloads are not always received in the
      correct (block ascending) order.



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   o  Additional congestion control measures need to be put in place.

   Using Non-confirmable (NON) messages, the faster transmissions occur
   as all the Blocks can be transmitted serially (as are IP fragmented
   packets) without having to wait for an acknowledgement or next
   request from the remote CoAP peer.  Recovery of missing Blocks is
   faster in that multiple missing Blocks can be requested in a single
   CoAP packet.  Even if there is asymmetrical packet loss, a body can
   still be sent and received by the peer whether the body compromises
   of a single or multiple payloads assuming no recovery is required.

   Note that the same performance benefits can be applied to Confirmable
   messages if the value of NSTART is increased from 1 (Section 4.7 of
   [RFC7252]).  However, the asymmetrical packet loss is not a benefit
   here.  Some sample examples with Confirmable messages are provided in
   Appendix A.

   There is little, if any, benefit of using these options with CoAP
   running over a reliable connection [RFC8323].  In this case, there is
   no differentiation between Confirmable and NON as they are not used.

   A CoAP endpoint can acknowledge all or a subset of the blocks.
   Concretely, the receiving CoAP endpoint informs the CoAP endpoint
   sender either successful receipt or reports on all blocks in the body
   that have been not yet been received.  The CoAP endpoint sender will
   then retransmit only the blocks that have been lost in transmission.

   Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options can be used instead of Block1
   and Block2 Options respectively when the different transmission
   semantics are required.  If the option is not supported by a peer,
   then transmissions can fall back to using Block1 and Block2
   respectively.

   The deviations from Block1 and Block2 Options are specified in
   Section 3.  Pointers to appropriate [RFC7959] sections are provided.

   The specification refers to the base CoAP methods defined in
   Section 5.8 of [RFC7252] and the new CoAP methods, FETCH, PATCH, and
   iPATCH introduced in [RFC8132].

1.3.  An Updated CoAP Response Code

   This document updates the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) by
   defining an additional message format for reporting on payloads using
   the Quick-Block1 Option that are not received by the server.

   See Section 4 for more details.




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


1.4.  Applicability Scope

   The block-wise transfer specified in [RFC7959] covers the general
   case, but falls short in situations where packet loss is highly
   asymmetrical.  The mechanism specified in the document provides
   roughly similar features to the Block1/Block2 Options.  It provides
   additional properties that are tailored towards the intended use
   case.  Concretely, this mechanism primarily targets applications such
   as DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) that can't use Confirmable (CON)
   responses to handle potential packet loss and that support
   application-specific mechanisms to assess whether the remote peer is
   able to handle the messages sent by a CoAP endpoint (e.g., DOTS
   heartbeats in Section 4.7 of [RFC8782]).

   The mechanism includes guards to prevent a CoAP agent from
   overloading the network by adopting an aggressive sending rate.
   These guards MUST be followed in addition to the existing CoAP
   congestion control as specified in Section 4.7 of [RFC7252].  See
   Section 6 for more details.

   This mechanism is not intended for general CoAP usage, and any use
   outside the intended use case should be carefully weighed against the
   loss of interoperability with generic CoAP applications.  It is hoped
   that the experience gained with this mechanism can feed future
   extensions of the block-wise mechanism that will both generally
   applicable and serve this particular use case.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Readers should be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in
   [RFC7252].

   The terms "payload" and "body" are defined in [RFC7959].  The term
   "payload" is thus used for the content of a single CoAP message
   (i.e., a single block being transferred), while the term "body" is
   used for the entire resource representation that is being transferred
   in a block-wise fashion.








Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


3.  The Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options

3.1.  Properties of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options

   The properties of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options are shown in
   Table 1.  The formatting of this table follows the one used in
   Table 4 of [RFC7252] (Section 5.10).  The C, U, N, and R columns
   indicate the properties Critical, Unsafe, NoCacheKey, and Repeatable
   defined in Section 5.4 of [RFC7252].  Only C and U columns are marked
   for the Quick-Block1 Option.  C, U, and R columns are marked for the
   Quick-Block2 Option.

   +--------+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+
   | Number | C | U | N | R | Name         | Format | Length | Default |
   +========+===+===+===+===+==============+========+========+=========+
   |  TBA1  | x | x |   |   | Quick-Block1 | uint   |  0-3   | (none)  |
   |  TBA2  | x | x |   | x | Quick-Block2 | uint   |  0-3   | (none)  |
   +--------+---+---+---+---+--------------+--------+--------+---------+

       Table 1: CoAP Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Option Properties

   The Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options can be present in both the
   request and response messages.  The Quick-Block1 Option pertains to
   the request payload and the Quick-Block2 Option pertains to the
   response payload.  The Content-Format Option applies to the body, not
   to the payload (i.e., it must be the same for all payloads of the
   same body).

   Quick-Block1 Option is useful with the payload-bearing POST, PUT,
   PATCH, and iPATCH requests and their responses (2.01 and 2.04).

   Quick-Block2 Option is useful with GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH, and
   iPATCH requests and their payload-bearing responses (2.01, 2.03,
   2.04, and 2.05) (Section 5.5 of [RFC7252]).

   To indicate support for Quick-Block2 responses, the CoAP client MUST
   include the Quick-Block2 Option in a GET or similar request, or the
   Quick-Block2 Option in a PUT or similar request, so that the server
   knows that the client supports this Quick-Block2 functionality should
   it needs to send back a body that spans multiple payloads.
   Otherwise, the server would use the Block2 Option (if supported) to
   send back a message body that is too large to fit into a single IP
   packet [RFC7959].

   If Quick-Block1 Option is present in a request or Quick-Block2 Option
   in a response (i.e., in that message to the payload of which it
   pertains), it indicates a block-wise transfer and describes how this
   specific block-wise payload forms part of the entire body being



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   transferred.  If it is present in the opposite direction, it provides
   additional control on how that payload will be formed or was
   processed.

   Implementation of the Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options is
   intended to be optional.  However, when it is present in a CoAP
   message, it MUST be processed (or the message rejected).  Therefore,
   Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options are identified as Critical
   options.

   The Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options are unsafe to forward.
   That is, a CoAP proxy that does not understand the Quick-Block1 (or
   Quick-Block2) Option MUST reject the request or response that uses
   either option.

   The Quick-Block2 Option is repeatable when requesting re-transmission
   of missing Blocks, but not otherwise.  Except that case, any request
   carrying multiple Quick-Block1 (or Quick-Block2) Options MUST be
   handled following the procedure specified in Section 5.4.5 of
   [RFC7252].

   The Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options, like the Block1 and Block2
   Options, are both a class E and a class U in terms of OSCORE
   processing (see Section 4.1 of [RFC8613]): The Quick-Block1 (or
   Quick-Block2) Option MAY be an Inner or Outer option.  The Inner and
   Outer values are therefore independent of each other.  The Inner
   option is encrypted and integrity protected between clients and
   servers, and provides message body identification in case of end-to-
   end fragmentation of requests.  The Outer option is visible to
   proxies and labels message bodies in case of hop-by-hop fragmentation
   of requests.

3.2.  Structure of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options

   The structure of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options follows the
   structure defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC7959].

   There is no default value for the Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2
   Options.  Absence of one of these options is equivalent to an option
   value of 0 with respect to the value of block number (NUM) and more
   bit (M) that could be given in the option, i.e., it indicates that
   the current block is the first and only block of the transfer (block
   number is set to 0, M is unset).  However, in contrast to the
   explicit value 0, which would indicate a size of the block (SZX) of
   0, and thus a size value of 16 bytes, there is no specific explicit
   size implied by the absence of the option -- the size is left
   unspecified.  (As for any uint, the explicit value 0 is efficiently




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   indicated by a zero-length option; this, therefore, is different in
   semantics from the absence of the option).

3.3.  Using the Quick-Block1 Option

   The Quick-Block1 Option is used when the client wants to send a large
   amount of data to the server using the POST, PUT, PATCH, or iPATCH
   methods where the data and headers do not fit into a single packet.

   When Quick-Block1 Option is used, the client MUST include a single
   Request-Tag Option [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag].  The Request-Tag
   value MUST be the same for all of the blocks in the body of data that
   is being transferred.  It is also used to identify a particular block
   of a body that needs to be re-transmitted.  The Request-Tag is opaque
   in nature, but it is RECOMMENDED that the client treats it as an
   unsigned integer of 8 bytes in length.  An implementation may want to
   consider limiting this to 4 bytes to reduce packet overhead size.
   The server still treats it as an opaque entity.  The Request-Tag
   value MUST be different for distinct bodies or sets of blocks of data
   and SHOULD be incremented whenever a new body of data is being
   transmitted for a CoAP session between peers.  The initial Request-
   Tag value SHOULD be randomly generated by the client.

   For Confirmable transmission, the server MUST continue to acknowledge
   each packet.  NSTART will also need to be increased from the default
   (1) to get faster transmission rates.

   Each individual payload of the body is treated as a new request.

   A 2.01 (Created) or 2.04 (Changed) Response Code indicates successful
   receipt of the entire body.  The 2.31 (Continue) Response Code MUST
   NOT be used.

   The 2.31 (Continue) Response is not used.

   A 4.00 (Bad Request) Response Code MUST be returned if the request
   does not include a Request-Tag Option but does include a Quick-Block1
   option.

   A 4.02 (Bad Option) Response Code MUST be returned if the server does
   not support the Quick-Block1 Option.

   A 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) Response Code can be returned under
   similar conditions to those discussed in Section 2.9.3 of [RFC7959].

   A 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code returned without
   Content-Type "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" (Section 10.2) is
   handled as in Section 2.9.2 [RFC7959].



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   A 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code returned with
   Content-Type "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" indicates that
   some of the payloads are missing and need to be resent.  The client
   then re-transmits the missing payloads using the Request-Tag and
   Quick-Block1 to specify the block number, SZX, and M bit as
   appropriate.  The Request-Tag value to use is determined from the
   payload of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code.  If
   the client does not recognize the Request-Tag, the client can ignore
   this response.

   If the server has not received all the payloads of a body, but one or
   more payloads have been received, it SHOULD wait for up to
   MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) before sending the
   4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code.  However, this time
   MAY be reduced to two times ACK_TIMEOUT before sending a 4.08
   (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code to cover the situation
   where MAX_PAYLOADS has been triggered by the client causing a break
   in transmission.

   If the client transmits a new body of data with a new Request-Tag to
   the same resource on a server, the server MUST remove any partially
   received body held for a previous Request-Tag for that resource.

   If the server receives a duplicate block with the same Request-Tag,
   it SHOULD silently ignore the packet.

   A server SHOULD only maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   up to EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).

3.4.  Using the Quick-Block2 Option

   In a request, for block number 0, the M bit unset indicates the
   entire body is requested.  If the M bit is set for block number 0,
   this indicates that this is a repeat request.  Otherwise for a
   request, the Quick-Block2 Option MUST always have the M bit unset.

   The payloads sent back from the server as a response MUST all have
   the same ETag (Section 5.10.6 of [RFC7252]) for the same body.  The
   server MUST NOT use the same ETag value for different representations
   of a resource.

   The ETag is opaque in nature, but it is RECOMMENDED that the server
   treats it as an unsigned integer of 8 bytes in length.  An
   implementation may want to consider limiting this to 4 bytes to
   reduce packet overhead size.  The client still treats it as an opaque
   entity.  The ETag value MUST be different for distinct bodies or sets
   of blocks of data and SHOULD be incremented whenever a new body of




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   data is being transmitted for a CoAP session between peers.  The
   initial ETag value SHOULD be randomly generated by the server.

   If the client detects that some of the payloads are missing, the
   missing payloads are requested by issuing a new GET, POST, PUT,
   FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH request that contains one or more Quick-
   Block2 Options that define the missing blocks.

   The ETag Option MUST NOT be used in the request as the server could
   respond with a 2.03 (Valid Response) with no payload.  If the server
   responds with a different ETag Option value (as the resource
   representation has changed), then the client SHOULD drop all the
   payloads for the current body that are no longer valid.

   The client may elect to request the missing blocks or just ignore the
   partial body.  It SHOULD wait for up to MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN
   (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) before issuing a GET, POST, PUT, FETCH,
   PATCH, or iPATCH request for the missing blocks.  However, this time
   MAY be reduced to two times ACK_TIMEOUT before sending the request to
   cover the situation where MAX_PAYLOADS has been triggered by the
   server causing a break in transmission.

   With NON transmission, the client only needs to indicate that some of
   the payloads are missing by issuing a GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH,
   or iPATCH request for the missing blocks.

   For Confirmable transmission, the client SHOULD continue to
   acknowledge each packet as well as issuing a separate GET, POST, PUT,
   FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH for the missing blocks.

   If the server transmits a new body of data (e.g., a triggered
   Observe) with a new ETag to the same client as an additional
   response, the client MUST remove any partially received body held for
   a previous ETag.

   If the client receives a duplicate block with the same ETag, it
   SHOULD silently ignore the packet.

   A client SHOULD only maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   up to EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) or as defined by
   the Max-Age Option whichever is the less.

3.5.  Working with Observe and Quick-Block2 Options

   As the blocks of the body are sent without waiting for
   acknowledgement of the individual blocks, the Observe value [RFC7641]
   MUST be the same for all the blocks of the same body.




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   If the client requests missing blocks, this is treated as a new
   request.  The Observe value may change but MUST still be reported.
   If the ETag value changes then the previously received partial body
   should be destroyed and the whole body re-requested.

3.6.  Working with Size1 and Size2 Options

   Section 4 of [RFC7959] defines two CoAP options: Size1 for indicating
   the size of the representation transferred in requests and Size2 for
   indicating the size of the representation transferred in responses.

   The Size1 or Size2 option values MUST exactly represent the size of
   the data on the body so that any missing data can easily be
   determined.

   The Size1 Option MUST be used with the Quick-Block1 Option when used
   in a request.  The Size2 Option MUST be used with the Quick-Block2
   Option when used in a response.

   If Size1 or Size2 Options are used, they MUST be used in all payloads
   of the body and MUST have the same value.

3.7.  Use of Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options Together

   The behavior is similar to the one defined in Section 3.3 of
   [RFC7959] with Quick-Block1 substituted for Block1 and Quick-Block2
   for Block2.

4.  The Use of 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code

   4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code has a new Content-Type
   "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" used to indicate that the
   server has not received all of the blocks of the request body that it
   needs to proceed.

   Likely causes are the client has not sent all blocks, some blocks
   were dropped during transmission, or the client has sent them
   sufficiently long ago that the server has already discarded them.

   The data payload of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response
   Code is encoded as a CBOR Sequence [RFC8742].  First is CBOR encoded
   Request-Tag followed by 1 or more missing CBOR encoded missing block
   numbers.  The missing block numbers MUST be unique in each 4.08
   (Request Entity Incomplete) when created by the server; the client
   SHOULD drop any duplicates in the same 4.08 (Request Entity
   Incomplete) message.





Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   The Content-Format Option (Section 5.10.3 of [RFC7252]) MUST be used
   in the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code.  It MUST be
   set to "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" (see Section 10.2).

   The Concise Data Definition Language [RFC8610] for the data
   describing these missing blocks is as follows:

              payload = {request-tag, missing-block-list}
              ; A copy of the opaque Request-Tag value
              request-tag = bstr
              missing-block-list = [1 * missing-block-number]
              ; A unique block number not received
              missing-block-number = uint

             Figure 1: Structure of the Missing Blocks Payload

   If the size of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response packet
   is larger than that defined by Section 4.6 [RFC7252], then the number
   of missing blocks MUST be limited so that the response can fit into a
   single packet.  If this is the case, then the server can send
   subsequent 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) responses containing the
   missing blocks on receipt of a new request providing a missing
   payload with the same Request-Tag.

5.  The Use of Tokens

   Each new request MUST use a unique Token (Section 4 of
   [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]).  Additional responses may use the
   same Token.

6.  Congestion Control

   PROBING_RATE parameter in CoAP indicates the average data rate that
   must not be exceeded by a CoAP endpoint in sending to a peer endpoint
   that does not respond.  The body of blocks will be subjected to
   PROBING_RATE (Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]).

   Each NON 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Codes is subjected
   to PROBING_RATE.

   Each NON GET or similar request using Quick-Block2 Option is
   subjected to PROBING_RATE.

   As the sending of many payloads of a single body may itself cause
   congestion, it is RECOMMENDED that after transmission of every set of
   MAX_PAYLOADS payloads of a single body, a delay is introduced of
   ACK_TIMEOUT (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]) before the next set of




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   payload transmissions to manage potential congestion issues.
   MAX_PAYLOADS should be configurable with a default value of 10.

      Note: The default value is chosen for reasons similar to those
      discussed in Section 5 of [RFC6928].

   For NON transmissions, it is permissible, but not required, to send
   the ultimate payload of a MAX_PAYLOADS set as a Confirmable packet.
   If a Confirmable packet is used, then the transmitting peer MUST wait
   for the ACK to be returned before sending the next set of payloads,
   which can be in time terms less than the ACK_TIMEOUT delay.

   Also, for NON transmissions, it is permissible, but not required, to
   send a Confirmable packet for the final payload of a body (that is, M
   bit unset).  If a Confirmable packet is used, then the transmitting
   peer MUST wait for the appropriate response to be returned for
   successful transmission, or respond to requests for the missing
   blocks (if any).

   The sending of the set of missing blocks is subject to MAX_PAYLOADS.

7.  Caching Considerations

   Caching block based information is not straight forward in a proxy.
   For Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options, it is expected that the
   proxy will reassemble the body (using any appropriate recovery
   options for packet loss) before passing on the body to the
   appropriate CoAP endpoint.  The onward transmission of the body does
   not require the use of the Quick-Block1 or Quick-Block2 Options.
   This means that the proxy must fully support the Quick-Block1 and
   Quick-Block2 Options.

   How the body is cached in the initial CoAP client (Quick-Block1) or
   ultimate CoAP server (Quick-Block2) is implementation specific.

   As the entire body is being cached in the proxy, the Quick-Block1 and
   Quick-Block2 Options are not part of the cache key.

   For Quick-Block2 responses, the ETag Option value is associated with
   the data (and onward transmitted to the CoAP client), but is not part
   of the cache key.

   For requests with Quick-Block1 Option, the Request-Tag Option is
   associated with the build up of the body from successive payloads,
   but is not part of the cache key.  For the onward transmission of the
   body using CoAP, a new Request-Tag SHOULD be generated and used.





Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   It is possible that two or more CoAP clients are concurrently
   updating the same resource through a common proxy to the same CoAP
   server using Quick-Block1 (or Block1) Option.  If this is the case,
   the first client to complete building the body causes that body to
   start transmitting to the CoAP server with an appropriate Request-Tag
   value.  When the next client completes building the body, any
   existing partial body transmission to the CoAP server is terminated
   and the new body representation transmission starts with a new
   Request-Tag value.

   A proxy that supports Quick-Block2 Option MUST be prepared to receive
   a GET or similar message indicating one or more missing blocks.  The
   proxy will serve from its cache the missing blocks that are available
   in its cache in the same way a server would send all the appropriate
   Quick-Block2s.  If the cache key matching body is not available in
   the cache, the proxy MUST request the entire body from the CoAP
   server using the information in the cache key.

   How long a CoAP endpoint (or proxy) keeps the body in its cache is
   implementation specific (e.g., it may be based on Max-Age).

8.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations

   As a reminder, the basic normative requirements on HTTP/CoAP mappings
   are defined in Section 10 of [RFC7252].  The implementation
   guidelines for HTTP/CoAP mappings are elaborated in [RFC8075].

   The rules defined in Section 5 of [RFC7959] are to be followed.

9.  Examples of Selective Block Recovery

   This section provides some sample flows to illustrate the use of
   Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Options.  Figure 2 lists the
   conventions that are used in the following subsections.

















Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


      T: Token value
      O: Observe Option value
      M: Message ID
     RT: Request-Tag
     ET: ETag
    QB1: Quick-Block1 Option values NUM/More/SZX
    QB2: Quick-Block2 Option values NUM/More/SZX
      \: Trimming long lines
   [[]]: Comments
   -->X: Message loss
   X<--: Message loss


                  Figure 2: Notations Used in the Figures

9.1.  Quick-Block1 Option: Non-Confirmable Example

   Figure 3 depicts an example of a NON PUT request conveying Quick-
   Block1 Option.  All the blocks are received by the server.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 RT=10 QB1:2/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 RT=10 QB1:3/0/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0xf1 T:0xf3
                ...

    Figure 3: Example of NON Request with Quick-Block1 Option (Without
                                   Loss)

   Consider now a scenario where a new body of data is to be sent by the
   client, but some blocks are dropped in transmission as illustrated in
   Figure 4.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x05 T:0xe0 RT=11 QB1:0/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xe1 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xe2 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x08 T:0xe3 RT=11 QB1:3/0/1024
            |          |
                ...

   Figure 4: Example of NON Request with Quick-Block1 Option (With Loss)



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   The server realizes that some blocks are missing and asks for the
   missing ones in one go (Figure 5).  It does so by indicating which
   blocks have been received in the data portion of the response.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
                ...
            |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0xf2 T:0xe3 [Missing 1,2 for RT=11]
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x09 T:0xe4 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x0a T:0xe5 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            |          |
            |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0xf3 T:0xe4 [Missing 2 for RT=11]
            +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x0b T:0xe6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0xf4 T:0xe6
            |          |
                ...

     Figure 5: Example of NON Request with Quick-Block1 Option (Blocks
                                 Recovery)

   Under high levels of traffic loss, the client can elect not to retry
   sending missing blocks of data.  This decision is implementation
   specific.

9.2.  Quick-Block2 Option: Non-Confirmable Example

   Figure 6 illustrates the example of Quick-Block2 Option.  The client
   sends a NON GET carrying an Observe and a Quick-Block2 Options.  The
   Quick-Block2 Option indicates a size hint (1024 bytes).  This request
   is replied by the server using four (4) blocks that are transmitted
   to the client without any loss.  Each of these blocks carries a
   Quick-Block2 Option.  The same process is repeated when an Observe is
   triggered, but no loss is experienced by any of the notification
   blocks.
















Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


          CoAP        CoAP
         Client      Server
           |          |
           +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 QB2:0/0/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf1 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf2 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf3 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf4 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:3/0/1024
                ...
             [[Observe triggered]]
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf5 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf6 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf7 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf8 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:3/0/1024
               ...


      Figure 6: Example of NON Notifications with Quick-Block2 Option
                              (Without Loss)

   Figure 7 shows the example of an Observe that is triggered but for
   which some notification blocks are lost.  The client detects the
   missing blocks and request their retransmission.  It does so by
   indicating the blocks that were successfully received.



























Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


          CoAP        CoAP
         Client      Server
           |          |
               ...
              [[Observe triggered]]
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:0/1/1024
           |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfa T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
           |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfb T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xfc T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:3/0/1024
           |          |
        [[Client realizes blocks are missing and asks for the missing
          ones in one go]]
           +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 QB2:1/0/1024\
           |          |                             QB2:2/0/1024
           |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xfd T:0xf1 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xfe T:0xf1 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
           |          |
        [[Get the final missing block]]
           +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 QB2:1/0/1024
           |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xff T:0xf2 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
               ...

      Figure 7: Example of NON Notifications with Quick-Block2 Option
                             (Blocks Recovery)

   Under high levels of traffic loss, the client can elect not to retry
   getting missing blocks of data.  This decision is implementation
   specific.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  New CoAP Options

   IANA is requested to add the following entries to the "CoAP Option
   Numbers" sub-registry [Options]:

        +--------+------------------+-----------+
        | Number | Name             | Reference |
        +========+==================+===========+
        |  TBA1  | Quick-Block1     | [RFCXXXX] |
        |  TBA2  | Quick-Block2     | [RFCXXXX] |
        +--------+------------------+-----------+

        Table 2: CoAP Quick-Block1 and Quick-Block2 Option Numbers

   This document suggests 19 (TBA1) and 51 (TBA2) as a values to be
   assigned for the new option numbers.




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


10.2.  New Content Format

   This document requests IANA to register the CoAP Content-Format ID
   for the "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" media type in the "CoAP
   Content-Formats" registry [Format]:

   o  Media Type: application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq
   o  Encoding: -
   o  Id: TBD3
   o  Reference: [RFCXXXX]

11.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in Section 9 of [RFC7959] should be
   taken into account.

   Security considerations related to the use of Request-Tag are
   discussed in Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag].

12.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Achim Kraus and Jim Schaad for the comments on the mailing
   list.

   Special thanks to Christian Amsuess and Carsten Bormann for their
   suggestions and several reviews, which improved this specification
   significantly.

   Some text from [RFC7959] is reused for readers convenience.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]
              Amsuess, C., Mattsson, J., and G. Selander, "CoAP: Echo,
              Request-Tag, and Token Processing", draft-ietf-core-echo-
              request-tag-10 (work in progress), July 2020.

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

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



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8075]  Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
              E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8132>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.

   [RFC8742]  Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [Format]   , <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-
              parameters.xhtml#content-formats>.







Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   [I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]
              Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., Doron, E., chenmeiling, c.,
              and J. Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
              Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry", draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-11
              (work in progress), July 2020.

   [Options]  , <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/core-
              parameters.xhtml#option-numbers>.

   [RFC6928]  Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
              "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6928, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6928>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8782]  Reddy.K, T., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Patil, P.,
              Mortensen, A., and N. Teague, "Distributed Denial-of-
              Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel
              Specification", RFC 8782, DOI 10.17487/RFC8782, May 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8782>.

Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages

   These examples assume NSTART has been increased to at least 4.

   The notations provided in Figure 2 are used in the following
   subsections.

A.1.  Quick-Block1 Option

   Let's now consider the use Quick-Block1 Option with a CON request as
   shown in Figure 8.  All the blocks are acknowledged (ACK).














Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 RT=10 QB1:2/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 RT=10 QB1:3/0/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x01
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x02
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x03
            |<---------+ ACK 2.04 M:0x04


    Figure 8: Example of CON Request with Quick-Block1 Option (Without
                                   Loss)

   Now, suppose that a new body of data is to sent but with some blocks
   dropped in transmission as illustrated in Figure 9.  The client will
   retry sending blocks for which no ACK was received.

           CoAP        CoAP
          Client      Server
            |          |
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x05 T:0xf4 RT=11 QB1:0/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x08 T:0xf7 RT=11 QB1:3/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x05
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x08
            |          |
          [[The client retries sending packets not acknowledged]]
            +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
            +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x06
            |          |
          [[The client retransmits messages not acknowledged
           (exponential backoff)]]
            +--->?     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
            |          |
          [[Either transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
            or successfully transmitted.]]

     Figure 9: Example of CON Request with Quick-Block1 Option (Blocks
                                 Recovery)

   It is implementation dependent as to whether a CoAP session is
   terminated following acknowledge retry timeout, or whether the CoAP
   session continues to be used under such adverse traffic conditions.



Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   If there is likely to be the possibility of network transient losses,
   then the use of Non-confirmable traffic should be considered.

A.2.  Quick-Block2 Option

   An example of the use of Quick-Block2 Option with Confirmable
   messages is shown in Figure 10.

         Client      Server
           |          |
           +--------->| CON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 QB2:0/0/1024
           |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
           |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe1 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
           |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe2 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0xe3 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:3/0/1024
               ...
                   [[Observe triggered]]
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe4 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe5 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe6 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe7 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:3/0/1024
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe4
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe5
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe6
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe7
                ...
                   [[Observe triggered]]
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe8 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:0/1/1024
           |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
           |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xeb T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:3/0/1024
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe8
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xeb
           |          |
                   [[Server retransmits messages not acknowledged]]
           |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
           |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
           |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe9
           |          |
                   [[Server retransmits messages not acknowledged
                    (exponential backoff)]]
           |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
           |          |
             [[Either transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
               or successfully transmitted.]]

     Figure 10: Example of CON Notifications with Quick-Block2 Option




Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Quick Block-Wise Transfer Options     September 2020


   It is implementation-dependent as to whether a CoAP session is
   terminated following acknowledge retry timeout, or whether the CoAP
   session continues to be used under such adverse traffic conditions.

   If there is likely to be the possibility of network transient losses,
   then the use of Non-confirmable traffic should be considered.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Jon Shallow
   United Kingdom

   Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com






























Boucadair & Shallow      Expires March 27, 2021                [Page 24]


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