draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-03.txt   draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-04.txt 
Network Working Group A. Keranen Network Working Group A. Keranen
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track July 22, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track July 24, 2018
Expires: January 23, 2019 Expires: January 25, 2019
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-03 draft-ietf-core-too-many-reqs-04
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 January 23, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2019.
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 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
An action result payload (see Section 5.5.1 in [RFC7252]) can be sent 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 by the server to give more guidance to the client, e.g., about the
details of the overload situation. 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 a similar request to the server before request, it SHOULD NOT send a similar request to the server before
the time indicated in the Max-Age option has passed. the time indicated in the Max-Age option has passed.
Note that a client may receive a 4.29 Response Code already on a
first request to a server. This can happen, for example, if there is
a proxy on the path and the server replies based on the load from
multiple clients aggregated by the proxy, or if a client has
restarted recently and does not remember its recent requests.
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.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Replying to CoAP requests with a Response Code consumes resources Replying to CoAP requests with a Response Code consumes resources
from a server. For a server under attack it may be more appropriate from a server. For a server under attack it may be more appropriate
to simply drop requests without responding. to simply drop requests without responding.
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
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 Abhijan Bhattacharyya, Carsten Bormann, Author would like to thank Abhijan Bhattacharyya, Carsten Bormann,
Gyorgy Rethy, Klaus Hartke, and Sandor Katona for their contributions Gyorgy Rethy, Jim Schaad, Klaus Hartke, and Sandor Katona for their
and reviews. 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>.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 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/