draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-00.txt   draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Keranen Network Working Group A. Keranen
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track April 3, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track June 29, 2018
Expires: October 5, 2018 Expires: December 31, 2018
Too Many Requests Response Code for the Constrained Application Protocol Too Many Requests Response Code for the Constrained Application Protocol
draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-00 draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-01
Abstract Abstract
A Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) server can experience A Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) server can experience
temporary overload because one or more clients are sending requests temporary overload because one or more clients are sending requests
to the server at a higher rate than the server is capable or willing to the server at a higher rate than the server is capable or willing
to handle. This document defines a new CoAP Response Code for a to handle. This document defines a new CoAP Response Code for a
server to indicate that a client should reduce the rate of requests. server to indicate that a client should reduce the rate of requests.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 5, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. CoAP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. CoAP Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. CoAP Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. CoAP Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] Response Codes The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] Response Codes
are used by a CoAP server to indicate the result of the attempt to are used by a CoAP server to indicate the result of the attempt to
understand and satisfy a request sent by a client. understand and satisfy a request sent by a client.
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
3. CoAP Server Behavior 3. CoAP Server Behavior
If a CoAP server is unable to serve a client that is sending CoAP If a CoAP server is unable to serve a client that is sending CoAP
request messages more often than the server is capable or willing to request messages more often than the server is capable or willing to
handle, the server SHOULD respond to the request(s) with the Response handle, the server SHOULD respond to the request(s) with the Response
Code 4.29, "Too Many Requests". The Max-Age option is used to Code 4.29, "Too Many Requests". The Max-Age option is used to
indicate the number of seconds after which the server assumes it is indicate the number of seconds after which the server assumes it is
OK for the client to retry the request. OK for the client to retry the request.
An action result payload (see Section 5.5.1 in [RFC7252]) can be sent
by the server to give more guidance to the client, e.g., about the
details of the overload situation.
4. CoAP Client Behavior 4. CoAP Client Behavior
If a client receives the 4.29 Response Code from a CoAP server to a If a client receives the 4.29 Response Code from a CoAP server to a
request, it SHOULD NOT send the same request to the server before the request, it SHOULD NOT send the same request to the server before the
time indicated in the Max-Age option has passed. time indicated in the Max-Age option has passed.
A client MUST NOT rely on a server being able to send the 4.29 A client MUST NOT rely on a server being able to send the 4.29
Response Code in an overload situation because an overloaded server Response Code in an overload situation because an overloaded server
may not be able to reply to all requests at all. may not be able to reply to all requests at all.
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
o Response Code: 4.29 o Response Code: 4.29
o Description: Too Many Requests o Description: Too Many Requests
o Reference: [[This document]] o Reference: [[This document]]
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
This Response Code definition was originally part of the "Publish- This Response Code definition was originally part of the "Publish-
Subscribe Broker for CoAP" document [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub]. Subscribe Broker for CoAP" document [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub].
Author would like to thank Gyorgy Rethy, Klaus Hartke, and Sandor Author would like to thank Carsten Bormann, Gyorgy Rethy, Klaus
Katona for their contributions and reviews. Hartke, and Sandor Katona for their contributions and reviews.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
rfc2119>. rfc2119>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/ Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/
RFC7252, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ RFC7252, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/