path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7959.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        C. Bormann
Request for Comments: 7959                       Universitaet Bremen TZI
Updates: 7252                                             Z. Shelby, Ed.
Category: Standards Track                                            ARM
ISSN: 2070-1721                                              August 2016


  Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)

Abstract

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a RESTful transfer
   protocol for constrained nodes and networks.  Basic CoAP messages
   work well for small payloads from sensors and actuators; however,
   applications will need to transfer larger payloads occasionally --
   for instance, for firmware updates.  In contrast to HTTP, where TCP
   does the grunt work of segmenting and resequencing, CoAP is based on
   datagram transports such as UDP or Datagram Transport Layer Security
   (DTLS).  These transports only offer fragmentation, which is even
   more problematic in constrained nodes and networks, limiting the
   maximum size of resource representations that can practically be
   transferred.

   Instead of relying on IP fragmentation, this specification extends
   basic CoAP with a pair of "Block" options for transferring multiple
   blocks of information from a resource representation in multiple
   request-response pairs.  In many important cases, the Block options
   enable a server to be truly stateless: the server can handle each
   block transfer separately, with no need for a connection setup or
   other server-side memory of previous block transfers.  Essentially,
   the Block options provide a minimal way to transfer larger
   representations in a block-wise fashion.

   A CoAP implementation that does not support these options generally
   is limited in the size of the representations that can be exchanged,
   so there is an expectation that the Block options will be widely used
   in CoAP implementations.  Therefore, this specification updates
   RFC 7252.













Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959.

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.























Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Block-Wise Transfers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  The Block2 and Block1 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Structure of a Block Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Block Options in Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.4.  Using the Block2 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.5.  Using the Block1 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.6.  Combining Block-Wise Transfers with the Observe Option  .  15
     2.7.  Combining Block1 and Block2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     2.8.  Combining Block2 with Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     2.9.  Response Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.9.1.  2.31 Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.9.2.  4.08 Request Entity Incomplete  . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.9.3.  4.13 Request Entity Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.10. Caching Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     3.1.  Block2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     3.2.  Block1 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     3.3.  Combining Block1 and Block2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     3.4.  Combining Observe and Block2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.  The Size2 and Size1 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   5.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     7.1.  Mitigating Resource Exhaustion Attacks  . . . . . . . . .  33
     7.2.  Mitigating Amplification Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37


















Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


1.  Introduction

   The work on Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) aims at realizing
   the Representational State Transfer (REST) architecture in a suitable
   form for the most constrained nodes (such as microcontrollers with
   limited RAM and ROM [RFC7228]) and networks (such as IPv6 over Low-
   Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) [RFC4944])
   [RFC7252].  The CoAP protocol is intended to provide RESTful [REST]
   services not unlike HTTP [RFC7230], while reducing the complexity of
   implementation as well as the size of packets exchanged in order to
   make these services useful in a highly constrained network of highly
   constrained nodes.

   This objective requires restraint in a number of sometimes
   conflicting ways:

   o  reducing implementation complexity in order to minimize code size,

   o  reducing message sizes in order to minimize the number of
      fragments needed for each message (to maximize the probability of
      delivery of the message), the amount of transmission power needed,
      and the loading of the limited-bandwidth channel,

   o  reducing requirements on the environment such as stable storage,
      good sources of randomness, or user-interaction capabilities.

   Because CoAP is based on datagram transports such as UDP or Datagram
   Transport Layer Security (DTLS), the maximum size of resource
   representations that can be transferred without too much
   fragmentation is limited.  In addition, not all resource
   representations will fit into a single link-layer packet of a
   constrained network, which may cause adaptation layer fragmentation
   even if IP-layer fragmentation is not required.  Using fragmentation
   (either at the adaptation layer or at the IP layer) for the transport
   of larger representations would be possible up to the maximum size of
   the underlying datagram protocol (such as UDP), but the
   fragmentation/reassembly process burdens the lower layers with
   conversation state that is better managed in the application layer.

   The present specification defines a pair of CoAP options to enable
   block-wise access to resource representations.  The Block options
   provide a minimal way to transfer larger resource representations in
   a block-wise fashion.  The overriding objective is to avoid the need
   for creating conversation state at the server for block-wise GET
   requests.  (It is impossible to fully avoid creating conversation
   state for POST/PUT, if the creation/replacement of resources is to be
   atomic; where that property is not needed, there is no need to create
   server conversation state in this case, either.)



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   Block-wise transfers are realized as combinations of exchanges, each
   of which is performed according to the CoAP base protocol [RFC7252].
   Each exchange in such a combination is governed by the specifications
   in [RFC7252], including the congestion control specifications
   (Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]) and the security considerations
   (Section 11 of [RFC7252]; additional security considerations then
   apply to the transfers as a whole, see Section 7).  The present
   specification minimizes the constraints it adds to those base
   exchanges; however, not all variants of using CoAP are very useful
   inside a block-wise transfer (e.g., using Non-confirmable requests
   within block-wise transfers outside the use case of Section 2.8 would
   escalate the overall non-delivery probability).  To be perfectly
   clear, the present specification also does not remove any of the
   constraints posed by the base specification it is strictly layered on
   top of.  For example, back-to-back packets are limited by the
   congestion control described in Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] (NSTART as a
   limit for initiating exchanges, PROBING_RATE as a limit for sending
   with no response); block-wise transfers cannot send/solicit more
   traffic than a client could be sending to / soliciting from the same
   server without the block-wise mode.

   In some cases, the present specification will RECOMMEND that a client
   perform a sequence of block-wise transfers "without undue delay".
   This cannot be phrased as an interoperability requirement, but is an
   expectation on implementation quality.  Conversely, the expectation
   is that servers will not have to go out of their way to accommodate
   clients that take considerable time to finish a block-wise transfer.
   For example, for a block-wise GET, if the resource changes while this
   proceeds, the entity-tag (ETag) for a further block obtained may be
   different.  To avoid this happening all the time for a fast-changing
   resource, a server MAY try to keep a cache around for a specific
   client for a short amount of time.  The expectation here is that the
   lifetime for such a cache can be kept short, on the order of a few
   expected round-trip times, counting from the previous block
   transferred.

   In summary, this specification adds a pair of Block options to CoAP
   that can be used for block-wise transfers.  Benefits of using these
   options include:

   o  Transfers larger than what can be accommodated in constrained-
      network link-layer packets can be performed in smaller blocks.

   o  No hard-to-manage conversation state is created at the adaptation
      layer or IP layer for fragmentation.

   o  The transfer of each block is acknowledged, enabling individual
      retransmission if required.



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   o  Both sides have a say in the block size that actually will be
      used.

   o  The resulting exchanges are easy to understand using packet
      analyzer tools, and thus quite accessible to debugging.

   o  If needed, the Block options can also be used (without changes) to
      provide random access to power-of-two sized blocks within a
      resource representation.

   A CoAP implementation that does not support these options generally
   is limited in the size of the representations that can be exchanged,
   see Section 4.6 of [RFC7252].  Even though the options are Critical,
   a server may decide to start using them in an unsolicited way in a
   response.  No effort was expended to provide a capability indication
   mechanism supporting that decision: since the block-wise transfer
   mechanisms are so fundamental to the use of CoAP for representations
   larger than about a kilobyte, there is an expectation that they are
   very widely implemented.

   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 RFC
   2119, BCP 14 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant
   CoAP implementations.

   In this document, the term "byte" is used in its now customary sense
   as a synonym for "octet".

   Where bit arithmetic is explained, this document uses the notation
   familiar from the programming language C, except that the operator
   "**" stands for exponentiation.

2.  Block-Wise Transfers

   As discussed in the introduction, there are good reasons to limit the
   size of datagrams in constrained networks:

   o  by the maximum datagram size (~ 64 KiB for UDP)

   o  by the desire to avoid IP fragmentation (MTU of 1280 for IPv6)

   o  by the desire to avoid adaptation-layer fragmentation (60-80 bytes
      for 6LoWPAN [RFC4919])

   When a resource representation is larger than can be comfortably
   transferred in the payload of a single CoAP datagram, a Block option
   can be used to indicate a block-wise transfer.  As payloads can be



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   sent both with requests and with responses, this specification
   provides two separate options for each direction of payload transfer.
   In naming these options (for block-wise transfers as well as in
   Section 4), we use the number 1 ("Block1", "Size1") to refer to the
   transfer of the resource representation that pertains to the request,
   and the number 2 ("Block2", "Size2") to refer to the transfer of the
   resource representation for the response.

   In the following, the term "payload" will be used for the actual
   content of a single CoAP message, i.e., a single block being
   transferred, while the term "body" will be used for the entire
   resource representation that is being transferred in a block-wise
   fashion.  The Content-Format Option applies to the body, not to the
   payload; in particular, the boundaries between the blocks may be in
   places that are not separating whole units in terms of the structure,
   encoding, or content-coding used by the Content-Format.  (Similarly,
   the ETag Option defined in Section 5.10.6 of [RFC7252] applies to the
   whole representation of the resource, and thus to the body of the
   response.)

   In most cases, all blocks being transferred for a body (except for
   the last one) will be of the same size.  (If the first request uses a
   bigger block size than the receiver prefers, subsequent requests will
   use the preferred block size.)  The block size is not fixed by the
   protocol.  To keep the implementation as simple as possible, the
   Block options support only a small range of power-of-two block sizes,
   from 2**4 (16) to 2**10 (1024) bytes.  As bodies often will not
   evenly divide into the power-of-two block size chosen, the size need
   not be reached in the final block (but even for the final block, the
   chosen power-of-two size will still be indicated in the block size
   field of the Block option).

2.1.  The Block2 and Block1 Options

       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       |  23 | C | U | - | - | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
       |  27 | C | U | - | - | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers

   Both Block1 and Block2 Options can be present in both the request and
   response messages.  In either case, the Block1 Option pertains to the
   request payload, and the Block2 Option pertains to the response
   payload.



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   Hence, for the methods defined in [RFC7252], Block1 is useful with
   the payload-bearing POST and PUT requests and their responses.
   Block2 is useful with GET, POST, and PUT requests and their payload-
   bearing responses (2.01, 2.02, 2.04, and 2.05 -- see Section 5.5 of
   [RFC7252]).

   Where Block1 is present in a request or Block2 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 transferred ("descriptive
   usage").  Where it is present in the opposite direction, it provides
   additional control on how that payload will be formed or was
   processed ("control usage").

   Implementation of either Block option is intended to be optional.
   However, when it is present in a CoAP message, it MUST be processed
   (or the message rejected); therefore, it is identified as a Critical
   option.  Either Block option MUST NOT occur more than once in a
   single message.

2.2.  Structure of a Block Option

   Three items of information may need to be transferred in a Block
   (Block1 or Block2) option:

   o  the size of the block (SZX);

   o  whether more blocks are following (M);

   o  the relative number of the block (NUM) within a sequence of blocks
      with the given size.

   The value of the Block option is a variable-size (0 to 3 byte)
   unsigned integer (uint, see Section 3.2 of [RFC7252]).  This integer
   value encodes these three fields, see Figure 1.  (Due to the CoAP
   uint-encoding rules, when all of NUM, M, and SZX happen to be zero, a
   zero-byte integer will be sent.)














Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


           0
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |  NUM  |M| SZX |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           0                   1
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |          NUM          |M| SZX |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           0                   1                   2
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |                   NUM                 |M| SZX |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 1: Block Option Value

   The block size is encoded using a three-bit unsigned integer (0 for
   2**4 bytes to 6 for 2**10 bytes), which we call the "SZX" ("size
   exponent"); the actual block size is then "2**(SZX + 4)".  SZX is
   transferred in the three least significant bits of the option value
   (i.e., "val & 7" where "val" is the value of the option).

   The fourth least significant bit, the M or "more" bit ("val & 8"),
   indicates whether more blocks are following or if the current block-
   wise transfer is the last block being transferred.

   The option value divided by sixteen (the NUM field) is the sequence
   number of the block currently being transferred, starting from zero.
   The current transfer is, therefore, about the "size" bytes starting
   at byte "NUM << (SZX + 4)".

   Implementation note:  As an implementation convenience, "(val & ~0xF)
      << (val & 7)", i.e., the option value with the last 4 bits masked
      out, shifted to the left by the value of SZX, gives the byte
      position of the first byte of the block being transferred.

   More specifically, within the option value of a Block1 or Block2
   Option, the meaning of the option fields is defined as follows:

   NUM:  Block Number, indicating the block number being requested or
      provided.  Block number 0 indicates the first block of a body
      (i.e., starting with the first byte of the body).





Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   M: More Flag ("not last block").  For descriptive usage, this flag,
      if unset, indicates that the payload in this message is the last
      block in the body; when set, it indicates that there are one or
      more additional blocks available.  When a Block2 Option is used in
      a request to retrieve a specific block number ("control usage"),
      the M bit MUST be sent as zero and ignored on reception.  (In a
      Block1 Option in a response, the M flag is used to indicate
      atomicity, see below.)

   SZX:  Block Size.  The block size is represented as a three-bit
      unsigned integer indicating the size of a block to the power of
      two.  Thus, block size = 2**(SZX + 4).  The allowed values of SZX
      are 0 to 6, i.e., the minimum block size is 2**(0+4) = 16 and the
      maximum is 2**(6+4) = 1024.  The value 7 for SZX (which would
      indicate a block size of 2048) is reserved, i.e., MUST NOT be sent
      and MUST lead to a 4.00 Bad Request response code upon reception
      in a request.

   There is no default value for the Block1 and Block2 Options.  Absence
   of one of these options is equivalent to an option value of 0 with
   respect to the value of NUM and 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 0, M bit not set).  However, in
   contrast to the explicit value 0, which would indicate an 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 indicated by a
   zero-length option; this, therefore, is different in semantics from
   the absence of the option.)

2.3.  Block Options in Requests and Responses

   The Block options are used in one of three roles:

   o  In descriptive usage, i.e., a Block2 Option in a response (such as
      a 2.05 response for GET), or a Block1 Option in a request (a PUT
      or POST):

      *  The NUM field in the option value describes what block number
         is contained in the payload of this message.

      *  The M bit indicates whether further blocks need to be
         transferred to complete the transfer of that body.

      *  The block size implied by SZX MUST match the size of the
         payload in bytes, if the M bit is set.  (SZX does not govern
         the payload size if M is unset).  For Block2, if the request
         suggested a larger value of SZX, the next request MUST move SZX



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


         down to the size given in the response.  (The effect is that,
         if the server uses the smaller of (1) its preferred block size
         and (2) the block size requested, all blocks for a body use the
         same block size.)

   o  A Block2 Option in control usage in a request (e.g., GET):

      *  The NUM field in the Block2 Option gives the block number of
         the payload that is being requested to be returned in the
         response.

      *  In this case, the M bit has no function and MUST be set to
         zero.

      *  The block size given (SZX) suggests a block size (in the case
         of block number 0) or repeats the block size of previous blocks
         received (in the case of a non-zero block number).

   o  A Block1 Option in control usage in a response (e.g., a 2.xx
      response for a PUT or POST request):

      *  The NUM field of the Block1 Option indicates what block number
         is being acknowledged.

      *  If the M bit was set in the request, the server can choose
         whether to act on each block separately, with no memory, or
         whether to handle the request for the entire body atomically,
         or any mix of the two.

         +  If the M bit is also set in the response, it indicates that
            this response does not carry the final response code to the
            request, i.e., the server collects further blocks from the
            same endpoint and plans to implement the request atomically
            (e.g., acts only upon reception of the last block of
            payload).  In this case, the response MUST NOT carry a
            Block2 Option.

         +  Conversely, if the M bit is unset even though it was set in
            the request, it indicates the block-wise request was enacted
            now specifically for this block, and the response carries
            the final response to this request (and to any previous ones
            with the M bit set in the response's Block1 Option in this
            sequence of block-wise transfers); the client is still
            expected to continue sending further blocks, the request
            method for which may or may not also be enacted per-block.
            (Note that the resource is now in a partially updated state;
            this approach is only appropriate where exposing such an




Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


            intermediate state is acceptable.  The client can reduce the
            window by quickly continuing to update the resource, or, in
            case of failure, restarting the update.)

      *  Finally, the SZX block size given in a control Block1 Option
         indicates the largest block size preferred by the server for
         transfers toward the resource that is the same or smaller than
         the one used in the initial exchange; the client SHOULD use
         this block size or a smaller one in all further requests in the
         transfer sequence, even if that means changing the block size
         (and possibly scaling the block number accordingly) from now
         on.

   Using one or both Block options, a single REST operation can be split
   into multiple CoAP message exchanges.  As specified in [RFC7252],
   each of these message exchanges uses their own CoAP Message ID.

   The Content-Format Option sent with the requests or responses MUST
   reflect the Content-Format of the entire body.  If blocks of a
   response body arrive with different Content-Format Options, it is up
   to the client how to handle this error (it will typically abort any
   ongoing block-wise transfer).  If blocks of a request arrive at a
   server with mismatching Content-Format Options, the server MUST NOT
   assemble them into a single request; this usually leads to a 4.08
   (Request Entity Incomplete, Section 2.9.2) error response on the
   mismatching block.

2.4.  Using the Block2 Option

   When a request is answered with a response carrying a Block2 Option
   with the M bit set, the requester may retrieve additional blocks of
   the resource representation by sending further requests with the same
   options as the initial request and a Block2 Option giving the block
   number and block size desired.  In a request, the client MUST set the
   M bit of a Block2 Option to zero and the server MUST ignore it on
   reception.

   To influence the block size used in a response, the requester MAY
   also use the Block2 Option on the initial request, giving the desired
   size, a block number of zero and an M bit of zero.  A server MUST use
   the block size indicated or a smaller size.  Any further block-wise
   requests for blocks beyond the first one MUST indicate the same block
   size that was used by the server in the response for the first
   request that gave a desired size using a Block2 Option.

   Once the Block2 Option is used by the requester and a first response
   has been received with a possibly adjusted block size, all further
   requests in a single block-wise transfer will ultimately converge on



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   using the same size, except that there may not be enough content to
   fill the last block (the one returned with the M bit not set).  (Note
   that the client may start using the Block2 Option in a second request
   after a first request without a Block2 Option resulted in a Block2
   Option in the response.)  The server uses the block size indicated in
   the request option or a smaller size, but the requester MUST take
   note of the actual block size used in the response it receives to its
   initial request and proceed to use it in subsequent requests.  The
   server behavior MUST ensure that this client behavior results in the
   same block size for all responses in a sequence (except for the last
   one with the M bit not set, and possibly the first one if the initial
   request did not contain a Block2 Option).

   Block-wise transfers can be used to GET resources whose
   representations are entirely static (not changing over time at all,
   such as in a schema describing a device), or for dynamically changing
   resources.  In the latter case, the Block2 Option SHOULD be used in
   conjunction with the ETag Option ([RFC7252], Section 5.10.6), to
   ensure that the blocks being reassembled are from the same version of
   the representation: The server SHOULD include an ETag Option in each
   response.  If an ETag Option is available, the client, when
   reassembling the representation from the blocks being exchanged, MUST
   compare ETag Options.  If the ETag Options do not match in a GET
   transfer, the requester has the option of attempting to retrieve
   fresh values for the blocks it retrieved first.  To minimize the
   resulting inefficiency, the server MAY cache the current value of a
   representation for an ongoing sequence of requests.  (The server may
   identify the sequence by the combination of the requesting endpoint
   and the URI being the same in each block-wise request.)  Note well
   that this specification makes no requirement for the server to
   establish any state; however, servers that offer quickly changing
   resources may thereby make it impossible for a client to ever
   retrieve a consistent set of blocks.  Clients that want to retrieve
   all blocks of a resource SHOULD strive to do so without undue delay.
   Servers can fully expect to be free to discard any cached state after
   a period of EXCHANGE_LIFETIME ([RFC7252], Section 4.8.2) after the
   last access to the state, however, there is no requirement to always
   keep the state for as long.

   The Block2 Option provides no way for a single endpoint to perform
   multiple concurrently proceeding block-wise response payload transfer
   (e.g., GET) operations to the same resource.  This is rarely a
   requirement, but as a workaround, a client may vary the cache key
   (e.g., by using one of several URIs accessing resources with the same
   semantics, or by varying a proxy-safe elective option).






Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


2.5.  Using the Block1 Option

   In a request with a request payload (e.g., PUT or POST), the Block1
   Option refers to the payload in the request (descriptive usage).

   In response to a request with a payload (e.g., a PUT or POST
   transfer), the block size given in the Block1 Option indicates the
   block size preference of the server for this resource (control
   usage).  Obviously, at this point the first block has already been
   transferred by the client without benefit of this knowledge.  Still,
   the client SHOULD heed the preference indicated and, for all further
   blocks, use the block size preferred by the server or a smaller one.
   Note that any reduction in the block size may mean that the second
   request starts with a block number larger than one, as the first
   request already transferred multiple blocks as counted in the smaller
   size.

   To counter the effects of adaptation-layer fragmentation on packet-
   delivery probability, a client may want to give up retransmitting a
   request with a relatively large payload even before MAX_RETRANSMIT
   has been reached, and try restating the request as a block-wise
   transfer with a smaller payload.  Note that this new attempt is then
   a new message-layer transaction and requires a new Message ID.
   (Because of the uncertainty about whether the request or the
   acknowledgement was lost, this strategy is useful mostly for
   idempotent requests.)

   In a block-wise transfer of a request payload (e.g., a PUT or POST)
   that is intended to be implemented in an atomic fashion at the
   server, the actual creation/replacement takes place at the time the
   final block, i.e., a block with the M bit unset in the Block1 Option,
   is received.  In this case, all success responses to non-final blocks
   carry the response code 2.31 (Continue, Section 2.9.1).  If not all
   previous blocks are available at the server at the time of processing
   the final block, the transfer fails and error code 4.08 (Request
   Entity Incomplete, Section 2.9.2) MUST be returned.  A server MAY
   also return a 4.08 error code for any (final or non-final) Block1
   transfer that is not in sequence; therefore, clients that do not have
   specific mechanisms to handle this case SHOULD always start with
   block zero and send the following blocks in order.

   One reason that a client might encounter a 4.08 error code is that
   the server has already timed out and discarded the partial request
   body being assembled.  Clients SHOULD strive to send all blocks of a
   request without undue delay.  Servers can fully expect to be free to
   discard any partial request body when a period of EXCHANGE_LIFETIME





Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   ([RFC7252], Section 4.8.2) has elapsed after the most recent block
   was transferred; however, there is no requirement on a server to
   always keep the partial request body for as long.

   The error code 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) can be returned at any
   time by a server that does not currently have the resources to store
   blocks for a block-wise request payload transfer that it would intend
   to implement in an atomic fashion.  (Note that a 4.13 response to a
   request that does not employ Block1 is a hint for the client to try
   sending Block1, and a 4.13 response with a smaller SZX in its Block1
   Option than requested is a hint to try a smaller SZX.)

   A block-wise transfer of a request payload that is implemented in a
   stateless fashion at the server is likely to leave the resource being
   operated on in an inconsistent state while the transfer is still
   ongoing or when the client does not complete the transfer.  This
   characteristic is closer to that of remote file systems than to that
   of HTTP, where state is always kept on the server during a transfer.
   Techniques well known from shared file access (e.g., client-specific
   temporary resources) can be used to mitigate this difference from
   HTTP.

   The Block1 Option provides no way for a single endpoint to perform
   multiple concurrently proceeding block-wise request payload transfer
   (e.g., PUT or POST) operations to the same resource.  Starting a new
   block-wise sequence of requests to the same resource (before an old
   sequence from the same endpoint was finished) simply overwrites the
   context the server may still be keeping.  (This is probably exactly
   what one wants in this case -- the client may simply have restarted
   and lost its knowledge of the previous sequence.)

2.6.  Combining Block-Wise Transfers with the Observe Option

   The Observe option provides a way for a client to be notified about
   changes over time of a resource [RFC7641].  Resources observed by
   clients may be larger than can be comfortably processed or
   transferred in one CoAP message.  The following rules apply to the
   combination of block-wise transfers with notifications.

   Observation relationships always apply to an entire resource; the
   Block2 Option does not provide a way to observe a single block of a
   resource.

   As with basic GET transfers, the client can indicate its desired
   block size in a Block2 Option in the GET request establishing or
   renewing the observation relationship.  If the server supports block-
   wise transfers, it SHOULD take note of the block size and apply it as
   a maximum size to all notifications/responses resulting from the GET



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   request (until the client is removed from the list of observers or
   the entry in that list is updated by the server receiving a new GET
   request for the resource from the client).

   When sending a 2.05 (Content) notification, the server only sends the
   first block of the representation.  The client retrieves the rest of
   the representation as if it had caused this first response by a GET
   request, i.e., by using additional GET requests with Block2 Options
   containing NUM values greater than zero.  (This results in the
   transfer of the entire representation, even if only some of the
   blocks have changed with respect to a previous notification.)

   As with other dynamically changing resources, to ensure that the
   blocks being reassembled are from the same version of the
   representation, the server SHOULD include an ETag Option in each
   response, and the reassembling client MUST compare the ETag Options
   (Section 2.4).  Even more so than for the general case of Block2,
   clients that want to retrieve all blocks of a resource they have been
   notified about with a first block SHOULD strive to do so without
   undue delay.

   See Section 3.4 for examples.

2.7.  Combining Block1 and Block2

   In PUT and particularly in POST exchanges, both the request body and
   the response body may be large enough to require the use of block-
   wise transfers.  First, the Block1 transfer of the request body
   proceeds as usual.  In the exchange of the last slice of this block-
   wise transfer, the response carries the first slice of the Block2
   transfer (NUM is zero).  To continue this Block2 transfer, the client
   continues to send requests similar to the requests in the Block1
   phase, but leaves out the Block1 Options and includes a Block2
   request option with non-zero NUM.

   Block2 transfers that retrieve the response body for a request that
   used Block1 MUST be performed in sequential order.

2.8.  Combining Block2 with Multicast

   A client can use the Block2 Option in a multicast GET request with
   NUM = 0 to aid in limiting the size of the response.

   Similarly, a response to a multicast GET request can use a Block2
   Option with NUM = 0 if the representation is large, or to further
   limit the size of the response.





Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   In both cases, the client retrieves any further blocks using unicast
   exchanges; in the unicast requests, the client SHOULD heed any block
   size preferences indicated by the server in the response to the
   multicast request.

   Other uses of the Block options in conjunction with multicast
   messages are for further study.

2.9.  Response Codes

   Beyond the response codes defined in [RFC7252], this specification
   defines two response codes and extends the meaning of one.

2.9.1.  2.31 Continue

   This new success status code indicates that the transfer of this
   block of the request body was successful and that the server
   encourages sending further blocks, but that a final outcome of the
   whole block-wise request cannot yet be determined.  No payload is
   returned with this response code.

2.9.2.  4.08 Request Entity Incomplete

   This new client error status code indicates that the server has not
   received the blocks of the request body that it needs to proceed.
   The client has not sent all blocks, not sent them in the order
   required by the server, or has sent them long enough ago that the
   server has already discarded them.

   (Note that one reason for not having the necessary blocks at hand may
   be a Content-Format mismatch, see Section 2.3.  Implementation note:
   A server can reject a Block1 transfer with this code when NUM != 0
   and a different Content-Format is indicated than expected from the
   current state of the resource.  If it implements the transfer in a
   stateless fashion, it can match up the Content-Format of the block
   against that of the existing resource.  If it implements the transfer
   in an atomic fashion, it can match up the block against the partially
   reassembled piece of representation that is going to replace the
   state of the resource.)

2.9.3.  4.13 Request Entity Too Large

   In Section 5.9.2.9 of [RFC7252], the response code 4.13 (Request
   Entity Too Large) is defined to be like HTTP 413 "Request Entity Too
   Large".  [RFC7252] also recommends that this response SHOULD include
   a Size1 Option (Section 4) to indicate the maximum size of request
   entity the server is able and willing to handle, unless the server is
   not in a position to make this information available.



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   The present specification allows the server to return this response
   code at any time during a Block1 transfer to indicate that it does
   not currently have the resources to store blocks for a transfer that
   it would intend to implement in an atomic fashion.  It also allows
   the server to return a 4.13 response to a request that does not
   employ Block1 as a hint for the client to try sending Block1.
   Finally, a 4.13 response to a request with a Block1 Option (control
   usage, see Section 2.3) where the response carries a smaller SZX in
   its Block1 Option is a hint to try that smaller SZX.

2.10.  Caching Considerations

   This specification attempts to leave a variety of implementation
   strategies open for caches, in particular those in caching proxies.
   For example, a cache is free to cache blocks individually, but also
   could wait to obtain the complete representation before it serves
   parts of it.  Partial caching may be more efficient in a cross-proxy
   (equivalent to a streaming HTTP proxy).  A cached block (partial
   cached response) can be used in place of a complete response to
   satisfy a block-wise request that is presented to a cache.  Note that
   different blocks can have different Max-Age values, as they are
   transferred at different times.  A response with a block updates the
   freshness of the complete representation.  Individual blocks can be
   validated, and validating a single block validates the complete
   representation.  A response with a Block1 Option in control usage
   with the M bit set invalidates cached responses for the target URI.

   A cache or proxy that combines responses (e.g., to split blocks in a
   request or increase the block size in a response, or a cross-proxy)
   may need to combine 2.31 and 2.01/2.04 responses; a stateless server
   may be responding with 2.01 only on the first Block1 block
   transferred, which dominates any 2.04 responses for later blocks.

   If-None-Match only works correctly on Block1 requests with (NUM=0)
   and MUST NOT be used on Block1 requests with NUM != 0.

3.  Examples

   This section gives a number of short examples with message flows for
   a block-wise GET, and for a PUT or POST.  These examples demonstrate
   the basic operation, the operation in the presence of
   retransmissions, and examples for the operation of the block size
   negotiation.








Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 18]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   In all these examples, a Block option is shown in a decomposed way
   indicating the kind of Block option (1 or 2) followed by a colon, and
   then the block number (NUM), more bit (M), and block size exponent
   (2**(SZX+4)) separated by slashes.  For example, a Block2 Option
   value of 33 would be shown as 2:2/0/32) and a Block1 Option value of
   59 would be shown as 1:3/1/128.

   As in [RFC7252], "MID" is used as an abbreviation for "Message ID".

3.1.  Block2 Examples

   The first example (Figure 2) shows a GET request that is split into
   three blocks.  The server proposes a block size of 128, and the
   client agrees.  The first two ACKs contain a payload of 128 bytes
   each, and the third ACK contains a payload between 1 and 128 bytes.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                            |
     | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status                       ------> |
     |                                                            |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.05 Content, 2:0/1/128          |
     |                                                            |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:1/0/128            ------> |
     |                                                            |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.05 Content, 2:1/1/128          |
     |                                                            |
     | CON [MID=1236], GET, /status, 2:2/0/128            ------> |
     |                                                            |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.05 Content, 2:2/0/128          |

                      Figure 2: Simple Block-Wise GET




















Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 19]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   In the second example (Figure 3), the client anticipates the block-
   wise transfer (e.g., because of a size indication in the link-format
   description [RFC6690]) and sends a block size proposal.  All ACK
   messages except for the last carry 64 bytes of payload; the last one
   carries between 1 and 64 bytes.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status, 2:0/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.05 Content, 2:0/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:1/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.05 Content, 2:1/1/64         |
     :                                                          :
     :                          ...                             :
     :                                                          :
     | CON [MID=1238], GET, /status, 2:4/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.05 Content, 2:4/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1239], GET, /status, 2:5/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1239], 2.05 Content, 2:5/0/64         |

              Figure 3: Block-Wise GET with Early Negotiation
























Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 20]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   In the third example (Figure 4), the client is surprised by the need
   for a block-wise transfer, and unhappy with the size chosen
   unilaterally by the server.  As it did not send a size proposal
   initially, the negotiation only influences the size from the second
   message exchange onward.  Since the client already obtained both the
   first and second 64-byte block in the first 128-byte exchange, it
   goes on requesting the third 64-byte block ("2/0/64").  None of this
   is (or needs to be) understood by the server, which simply responds
   to the requests as it best can.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status                     ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.05 Content, 2:0/1/128        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:2/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.05 Content, 2:2/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1236], GET, /status, 2:3/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.05 Content, 2:3/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1237], GET, /status, 2:4/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1237], 2.05 Content, 2:4/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1238], GET, /status, 2:5/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.05 Content, 2:5/0/64         |

              Figure 4: Block-Wise GET with Late Negotiation

   In all these (and the following) cases, retransmissions are handled
   by the CoAP message exchange layer, so they don't influence the block
   operations (Figures 5 and 6).














Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 21]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status                     ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.05 Content, 2:0/1/128        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GE/////////////////////////              |
     |                                                          |
     | (timeout)                                                |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:2/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.05 Content, 2:2/1/64         |
     :                                                          :
     :                          ...                             :
     :                                                          :
     | CON [MID=1238], GET, /status, 2:5/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.05 Content, 2:5/0/64         |

        Figure 5: Block-Wise GET with Late Negotiation and Lost CON

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], GET, /status                     ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.05 Content, 2:0/1/128        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:2/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | //////////////////////////////////tent, 2:2/1/64         |
     |                                                          |
     | (timeout)                                                |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], GET, /status, 2:2/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.05 Content, 2:2/1/64         |
     :                                                          :
     :                          ...                             :
     :                                                          :
     | CON [MID=1238], GET, /status, 2:5/0/64           ------> |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.05 Content, 2:5/0/64         |

        Figure 6: Block-Wise GET with Late Negotiation and Lost ACK






Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 22]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


3.2.  Block1 Examples

   The following examples demonstrate a PUT exchange; a POST exchange
   looks the same, with different requirements on atomicity/idempotence.
   Note that, similar to GET, the responses to the requests that have a
   more bit in the request Block1 Option are provisional and carry the
   response code 2.31 (Continue); only the final response tells the
   client that the PUT succeeded.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], PUT, /options, 1:0/1/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.31 Continue, 1:0/1/128       |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], PUT, /options, 1:1/1/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.31 Continue, 1:1/1/128       |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1236], PUT, /options, 1:2/0/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.04 Changed, 1:2/0/128        |

                  Figure 7: Simple Atomic Block-Wise PUT

   A stateless server that simply builds/updates the resource in place
   (statelessly) may indicate this by not setting the more bit in the
   response (Figure 8); in this case, the response codes are valid
   separately for each block being updated.  This is of course only an
   acceptable behavior of the server if the potential inconsistency
   present during the run of the message exchange sequence does not lead
   to problems, e.g., because the resource being created or changed is
   not yet or not currently in use.


















Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 23]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], PUT, /options, 1:0/1/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.04 Changed, 1:0/0/128        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], PUT, /options, 1:1/1/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.04 Changed, 1:1/0/128        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1236], PUT, /options, 1:2/0/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.04 Changed, 1:2/0/128        |

                 Figure 8: Simple Stateless Block-Wise PUT

   Finally, a server receiving a block-wise PUT or POST may want to
   indicate a smaller block size preference (Figure 9).  In this case,
   the client SHOULD continue with a smaller block size; if it does, it
   MUST adjust the block number to properly count in that smaller size.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1234], PUT, /options, 1:0/1/128    ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.31 Continue, 1:0/1/32        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1235], PUT, /options, 1:4/1/32     ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.31 Continue, 1:4/1/32        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1236], PUT, /options, 1:5/1/32     ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.31 Continue, 1:5/1/32        |
     |                                                          |
     | CON [MID=1237], PUT, /options, 1:6/0/32     ------>      |
     |                                                          |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.04 Changed, 1:6/0/32         |

          Figure 9: Simple Atomic Block-Wise PUT with Negotiation











Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 24]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


3.3.  Combining Block1 and Block2

   Block options may be used in both directions of a single exchange.
   The following example demonstrates a block-wise POST request,
   resulting in a separate block-wise response.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1234], POST, /soap, 1:0/1/128      ------>          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.31 Continue, 1:0/1/128           |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1235], POST, /soap, 1:1/1/128      ------>          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.31 Continue, 1:1/1/128           |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1236], POST, /soap, 1:2/0/128      ------>          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.04 Changed, 2:0/1/128, 1:2/0/128 |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1237], POST, /soap, 2:1/0/128      ------>          |
     | (no payload for requests with Block2 with NUM != 0)          |
     | (could also do late negotiation by requesting,               |
     |  e.g., 2:2/0/64)                                             |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1237], 2.04 Changed, 2:1/1/128            |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1238], POST, /soap, 2:2/0/128      ------>          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.04 Changed, 2:2/1/128            |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1239], POST, /soap, 2:3/0/128      ------>          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1239], 2.04 Changed, 2:3/0/128            |

        Figure 10: Atomic Block-Wise POST with Block-Wise Response















Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 25]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   This model does provide for early negotiation input to the Block2
   block-wise transfer, as shown below.

   CLIENT                                                     SERVER
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1234], POST, /soap, 1:0/1/128 ------>               |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1234], 2.31 Continue, 1:0/1/128           |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1235], POST, /soap, 1:1/1/128 ------>               |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1235], 2.31 Continue, 1:1/1/128           |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1236], POST, /soap, 1:2/0/128, 2:0/0/64 ------>     |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1236], 2.04 Changed, 1:2/0/128, 2:0/1/64  |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1237], POST, /soap, 2:1/0/64      ------>           |
     | (no payload for requests with Block2 with NUM != 0)          |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1237], 2.04 Changed, 2:1/1/64             |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1238], POST, /soap, 2:2/0/64      ------>           |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1238], 2.04 Changed, 2:2/1/64             |
     |                                                              |
     | CON [MID=1239], POST, /soap, 2:3/0/64      ------>           |
     |                                                              |
     | <------   ACK [MID=1239], 2.04 Changed, 2:3/0/64             |

        Figure 11: Atomic Block-Wise POST with Block-Wise Response,
                             Early Negotiation

3.4.  Combining Observe and Block2

   In the following example, the server first sends a direct response
   (Observe sequence number 62350) to the initial GET request (the
   resulting block-wise transfer is as in Figure 4 and has therefore
   been left out).  The second transfer is started by a 2.05
   notification that contains just the first block (Observe sequence
   number 62354); the client then goes on to obtain the rest of the
   blocks.









Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 26]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


       CLIENT  SERVER
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011636
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |    Observe: (empty)
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451636
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |     Block2: 0/1/128
         |      |    Observe: 62350
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f38e
         |      |    Payload: [128 bytes]
         |      |
         |      |  (Usual GET transfer left out)
           ...
         |      |  (Notification of first block)
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x4145af9c
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |     Block2: 0/1/128
         |      |    Observe: 62354
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [128 bytes]
         |      |
         +- - ->|     Header: 0x6000af9c
         |      |
         |      |  (Retrieval of remaining blocks)
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011637
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |     Block2: 1/0/128
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451637
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |     Block2: 1/1/128
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [128 bytes]
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011638
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |     Block2: 2/0/128
         |      |






Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 27]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451638
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |     Block2: 2/0/128
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [53 bytes]

           Figure 12: Observe Sequence with Block-Wise Response

   (Note that the choice of token 0xfc in this example is arbitrary;
   tokens are just shown in this example to illustrate that the requests
   for additional blocks cannot make use of the token of the Observation
   relationship.  As a general comment on tokens, there is no other
   mention of tokens in this document, as block-wise transfers handle
   tokens like any other CoAP exchange.  As usual, the client is free to
   choose tokens for each exchange as it likes.)

   In the following example, the client also uses early negotiation to
   limit the block size to 64 bytes.

       CLIENT  SERVER
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011636
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |    Observe: (empty)
         |      |     Block2: 0/0/64
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451636
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |     Block2: 0/1/64
         |      |    Observe: 62350
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f38e
         |      |    Max-Age: 60
         |      |    Payload: [64 bytes]
         |      |
         |      |  (Usual GET transfer left out)
           ...
         |      |  (Notification of first block)
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x4145af9c
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfb
         |      |     Block2: 0/1/64
         |      |    Observe: 62354
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [64 bytes]
         |      |





Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 28]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


         +- - ->|     Header: 0x6000af9c
         |      |
         |      |  (Retrieval of remaining blocks)
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011637
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |     Block2: 1/0/64
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451637
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |     Block2: 1/1/64
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [64 bytes]
           ....
         |      |
         +----->|     Header: GET 0x41011638
         | GET  |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |   Uri-Path: status-icon
         |      |     Block2: 4/0/64
         |      |
         |<-----+     Header: 2.05 0x61451638
         | 2.05 |      Token: 0xfc
         |      |     Block2: 4/0/64
         |      |       ETag: 6f00f392
         |      |    Payload: [53 bytes]

            Figure 13: Observe Sequence with Early Negotiation

4.  The Size2 and Size1 Options

   In many cases when transferring a large resource representation block
   by block, it is advantageous to know the total size early in the
   process.  Some indication may be available from the maximum size
   estimate attribute "sz" provided in a resource description [RFC6690].
   However, the size may vary dynamically, so a more up-to-date
   indication may be useful.

   This specification 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.
   (Size1 has already been defined in Section 5.10.9 of [RFC7252] to
   provide "size information about the resource representation in a
   request"; however, that section only details the narrow case of
   indicating in 4.13 responses the maximum size of request payload that
   the server is able and willing to handle.  The present specification
   provides details about its use as a request option as well.)




Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 29]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   The Size2 Option may be used for two purposes:

   o  In a request, to ask the server to provide a size estimate along
      with the usual response ("size request").  For this usage, the
      value MUST be set to 0.

   o  In a response carrying a Block2 Option, to indicate the current
      estimate the server has of the total size of the resource
      representation, measured in bytes ("size indication").

   Similarly, the Size1 Option may be used for two purposes:

   o  In a request carrying a Block1 Option, to indicate the current
      estimate the client has of the total size of the resource
      representation, measured in bytes ("size indication").

   o  In a 4.13 response, to indicate the maximum size that would have
      been acceptable [RFC7252], measured in bytes.

   Apart from conveying/asking for size information, the Size options
   have no other effect on the processing of the request or response.
   If the client wants to minimize the size of the payload in the
   resulting response, it should add a Block2 Option to the request with
   a small block size (e.g., setting SZX=0).

   The Size options are "elective", i.e., a client MUST be prepared for
   the server to ignore the size estimate request.  Either Size option
   MUST NOT occur more than once in a single message.

        +-----+---+---+---+---+-------+--------+--------+---------+
        | No. | C | U | N | R | Name  | Format | Length | Default |
        +-----+---+---+---+---+-------+--------+--------+---------+
        |  60 |   |   | x |   | Size1 | uint   |    0-4 | (none)  |
        |     |   |   |   |   |       |        |        |         |
        |  28 |   |   | x |   | Size2 | uint   |    0-4 | (none)  |
        +-----+---+---+---+---+-------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 2: Size Option Numbers

   Implementation Notes:

   o  As a quality of implementation consideration, block-wise transfers
      for which the total size considerably exceeds the size of one
      block are expected to include size indications, whenever those can
      be provided without undue effort (preferably with the first block
      exchanged).  If the size estimate does not change, the indication
      does not need to be repeated for every block.




Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 30]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   o  The end of a block-wise transfer is governed by the M bits in the
      Block options, _not_ by exhausting the size estimates exchanged.

   o  As usual for an option of type uint, the value 0 is best expressed
      as an empty option (0 bytes).  There is no default value for
      either Size option.

   o  The Size options are neither critical nor unsafe, and are marked
      as No-Cache-Key.

5.  HTTP-Mapping Considerations

   In this subsection, we give some brief examples of the influence that
   the Block options might have on intermediaries that map between CoAP
   and HTTP.

   For mapping CoAP requests to HTTP, the intermediary may want to map
   the sequence of block-wise transfers into a single HTTP transfer.
   For example, for a GET request, the intermediary could perform the
   HTTP request once the first block has been requested and could then
   fulfill all further block requests out of its cache.  A constrained
   implementation may not be able to cache the entire object and may use
   a combination of TCP flow control and (in particular if timeouts
   occur) HTTP range requests to obtain the information necessary for
   the next block transfer at the right time.

   For PUT or POST requests, historically there was more variation in
   how HTTP servers might implement ranges; recently, [RFC7233] has
   defined that Range header fields received with a request method other
   than GET are not to be interpreted.  So, in general, the CoAP-to-HTTP
   intermediary will have to try sending the payload of all the blocks
   of a block-wise transfer for these other methods within one HTTP
   request.  If enough buffering is available, this request can be
   started when the last CoAP block is received.  A constrained
   implementation may want to relieve its buffering by already starting
   to send the HTTP request at the time the first CoAP block is
   received; any HTTP 408 status code that indicates that the HTTP
   server became impatient with the resulting transfer can then be
   mapped into a CoAP 4.08 response code (similarly, 413 maps to 4.13).

   For mapping HTTP to CoAP, the intermediary may want to map a single
   HTTP transfer into a sequence of block-wise transfers.  If the HTTP
   client is too slow delivering a request body on a PUT or POST, the
   CoAP server might time out and return a 4.08 response code, which in
   turn maps well to an HTTP 408 status code (again, 4.13 maps to 413).
   HTTP range requests received on the HTTP side may be served out of a
   cache and/or mapped to GET requests that request a sequence of blocks
   that cover the range.



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 31]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   (Note that, while the semantics of CoAP 4.08 and HTTP 408 differ,
   this difference is largely due to the different way the two protocols
   are mapped to transport.  HTTP has an underlying TCP connection,
   which supplies connection state, so an HTTP 408 status code can
   immediately be used to indicate that a timeout occurred during
   transmitting a request through that active TCP connection.  The CoAP
   4.08 response code indicates one or more missing blocks, which may be
   due to timeouts or resource constraints; as there is no connection
   state, there is no way to deliver such a response immediately;
   instead, it is delivered on the next block transfer.  Still, HTTP 408
   is probably the best mapping back to HTTP, as the timeout is the most
   likely cause for a CoAP 4.08.  Note that there is no way to
   distinguish a timeout from a missing block for a server without
   creating additional state, the need for which we want to avoid.)

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document adds the following option numbers to the "CoAP Option
   Numbers" registry defined by [RFC7252]:

                      +--------+--------+-----------+
                      | Number | Name   | Reference |
                      +--------+--------+-----------+
                      | 23     | Block2 | RFC 7959  |
                      |        |        |           |
                      | 27     | Block1 | RFC 7959  |
                      |        |        |           |
                      | 28     | Size2  | RFC 7959  |
                      +--------+--------+-----------+

                       Table 3: CoAP Option Numbers

   This document adds the following response codes to the "CoAP Response
   Codes" registry defined by [RFC7252]:

             +------+---------------------------+-----------+
             | Code | Description               | Reference |
             +------+---------------------------+-----------+
             | 2.31 | Continue                  | RFC 7959  |
             |      |                           |           |
             | 4.08 | Request Entity Incomplete | RFC 7959  |
             +------+---------------------------+-----------+

                       Table 4: CoAP Response Codes







Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 32]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


7.  Security Considerations

   Providing access to blocks within a resource may lead to surprising
   vulnerabilities.  Where requests are not implemented atomically, an
   attacker may be able to exploit a race condition or confuse a server
   by inducing it to use a partially updated resource representation.
   Partial transfers may also make certain problematic data invisible to
   Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs); it is RECOMMENDED that an IDS
   that analyzes resource representations transferred by CoAP implement
   the Block options to gain access to entire resource representations.
   Still, approaches such as transferring even-numbered blocks on one
   path and odd-numbered blocks on another path, or even transferring
   blocks multiple times with different content and obtaining a
   different interpretation of temporal order at the IDS than at the
   server, may prevent an IDS from seeing the whole picture.  These
   kinds of attacks are well understood from IP fragmentation and TCP
   segmentation; CoAP does not add fundamentally new considerations.

   Where access to a resource is only granted to clients making use of
   specific security associations, all blocks of that resource MUST be
   subject to the same security checks; it MUST NOT be possible for
   unprotected exchanges to influence blocks of an otherwise protected
   resource.  As a related consideration, where object security is
   employed, PUT/POST should be implemented in the atomic fashion,
   unless the object security operation is performed on each access and
   the creation of unusable resources can be tolerated.  Future end-to-
   end security mechanisms that may be added to CoAP itself may have
   related security considerations, this includes considerations about
   caching of blocks in clients and in proxies (see Sections 2.10 and 5
   for different strategies in performing this caching); these security
   considerations will need to be described in the specifications of
   those mechanisms.

   A stateless server might be susceptible to an attack where the
   adversary sends a Block1 (e.g., PUT) block with a high block number:
   A naive implementation might exhaust its resources by creating a huge
   resource representation.

   Misleading size indications may be used by an attacker to induce
   buffer overflows in poor implementations, for which the usual
   considerations apply.

7.1.  Mitigating Resource Exhaustion Attacks

   Certain block-wise requests may induce the server to create state,
   e.g., to create a snapshot for the block-wise GET of a fast-changing
   resource to enable consistent access to the same version of a
   resource for all blocks, or to create temporary resource



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 33]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   representations that are collected until pressed into service by a
   final PUT or POST with the more bit unset.  All mechanisms that
   induce a server to create state that cannot simply be cleaned up
   create opportunities for denial-of-service attacks.  Servers SHOULD
   avoid being subject to resource exhaustion based on state created by
   untrusted sources.  But even if this is done, the mitigation may
   cause a denial-of-service to a legitimate request when it is drowned
   out by other state-creating requests.  Wherever possible, servers
   should therefore minimize the opportunities to create state for
   untrusted sources, e.g., by using stateless approaches.

   Performing segmentation at the application layer is almost always
   better in this respect than at the transport layer or lower (IP
   fragmentation, adaptation-layer fragmentation), for instance, because
   there are application-layer semantics that can be used for mitigation
   or because lower layers provide security associations that can
   prevent attacks.  However, it is less common to apply timeouts and
   keepalive mechanisms at the application layer than at lower layers.
   Servers MAY want to clean up accumulated state by timing it out (cf.
   response code 4.08), and clients SHOULD be prepared to run block-wise
   transfers in an expedient way to minimize the likelihood of running
   into such a timeout.

7.2.  Mitigating Amplification Attacks

   [RFC7252] discusses the susceptibility of CoAP endpoints for use in
   amplification attacks.

   A CoAP server can reduce the amount of amplification it provides to
   an attacker by offering large resource representations only in
   relatively small blocks.  With this, e.g., for a 1000-byte resource,
   a 10-byte request might result in an 80-byte response (with a 64-byte
   block) instead of a 1016-byte response, considerably reducing the
   amplification provided.

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

   [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>.



Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 34]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [REST]     Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
              Network-based Software Architectures", Ph.D. Dissertation,
              University of California, Irvine, 2000,
              <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/
              fielding_dissertation.pdf>.

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
              RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4919>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

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

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7233]  Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
              "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
              RFC 7233, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233>.









Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 35]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


Acknowledgements

   Much of the content of this document is the result of discussions
   with the [RFC7252] authors, and via many CoRE WG discussions.

   Charles Palmer provided extensive editorial comments to a previous
   draft version of this document, some of which have been covered in
   this document.  Esko Dijk reviewed a more recent version, leading to
   a number of further editorial improvements, a solution to the 4.13
   ambiguity problem, and the section about combining Block and
   multicast (Section 2.8).  Markus Becker proposed getting rid of an
   ill-conceived default value for the Block2 and Block1 Options.  Peter
   Bigot insisted on a more systematic coverage of the options and
   response code.  Qin Wu provided a review for the IETF Operations
   directorate, and Goeran Selander commented on the security
   considerations.

   Kepeng Li, Linyi Tian, and Barry Leiba wrote up an early version of
   the Size option, which is described in this document.  Klaus Hartke
   wrote some of the text describing the interaction of Block2 with
   Observe.  Matthias Kovatsch provided a number of significant
   simplifications of the protocol.

   The IESG reviewers provided very useful comments.  Spencer Dawkins
   even suggested new text.  He and Mirja Kuehlewind insisted on more
   explicit information about the layering of block-wise transfers on
   top of the base protocol.  Ben Campbell helped untangle some MUST/
   SHOULD soup.  Comments by Alexey Melnikov, as well as the Gen-ART
   review by Jouni Korhonen, resulted in further improvements to the
   text.





















Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 36]
^L
RFC 7959               Block-Wise Transfer in CoAP           August 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org


   Zach Shelby (editor)
   ARM
   150 Rose Orchard
   San Jose, CA  95134
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-408-203-9434
   Email: zach.shelby@arm.com































Bormann & Shelby             Standards Track                   [Page 37]
^L