Hi all,
Transfering CoAP defined in -08 draft for reliable transmission facilities is
as important as CoAP over CON/NON message.
In -08 draft, it is just clear how to make a new message for tranfering over
TCP,
or other reliable facilities in the scenario (I) CoAP/UDP ---> (C2C) Proxy
----> CoAP over TCP.
But in -08 draft it is unclear how to work for the scenario (II) CoAP/TCP --->
(C2C) Proxy ----> CoAP over UDP.
The problem is when the C2C Proxy have got a message form the CoAP/TCP side,
how the Proxy make a decision to delivery CON or NON message carrying CoAP over
UDP?
Even for the scenario (I), the problem is the same when delivering the CoAP
response.
In these scenarios a key problem is that should the CoAP semantics be
End-to-End or Hop-by-Hop when a C2C proxy is existed.
Regards,
Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
From: Yoshifumi Nishida
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:24 PM
To: Brian Raymor
Cc: tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; Yoshifumi Nishida ;
draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; core(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [core] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
Hello,
As far as I've read -08 draft, I think this point has not been addressed yet. I
hope some folks could elaborate a bit more if they think this is not an
important point for the draft.
--
Yoshi
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Brian Raymor
<Brian(_dot_)Raymor(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think that I understand your perceptions better. Prior to adoption of
coap-tcp-tls and before I was active in the WG, I recall discussions related to
the confusion over application vs transport reliability in CoAP especially as
related to CON and NON. What was intended?
Tim Carey outlined some concerns in:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carey-core-std-msg-vs-trans-adapt-00#section-2
This topic was presented in detail at IETF 93 -
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-core-0.pdf - starting on
slide 23.
And in a related thread on the mailing list back in 2015 -
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg06280.html - Carsten
responded:
> In any case, CON and NON are about message layer semantics, not about
application semantics
> -- you gave them a meaning they don't have.
By IETF 94, the authors were reporting – “Most of the Confusion around
CON/NON was resolved”.
Where relevant, I’ve added clarifications - such as the Appendix related to
differences in Observe for reliable transports.
Both Carsten and Hannes could probably offer more context if needed.
From: Yoshifumi Nishida
[mailto:nishida(_at_)sfc(_dot_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Brian Raymor <Brian(_dot_)Raymor(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida(_at_)sfc(_dot_)wide(_dot_)ad(_dot_)jp>;
tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
core(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
Hi Brian,
Just in case,
Reliable transports only provide reliability at transport level. It doesn't
provide reliability in application protocol level.
RFC7252 has reliability mechanisms in it since it uses UDP. This means it has
abilities to check both transport and app level reliability.
This draft only provides transport level reliability and apps will need to
detect app protocol failure by themselves.
This means 7252 and this draft are not totally equivalent from the viewpoint
of applications.
I am not saying this is wrong or bad, but I believe app developer should
aware this point.
--
Yoshi
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Brian Raymor
<Brian(_dot_)Raymor(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Yoshi,
> OK. I also think we should state that the protocol should notify the
failure events to applications.
> Since errors can happen not only in TCP, but also TLS and websocket
level, mentioning only TCP close or reset might not
> be enough.
After reviewing with the authors, an additional clarification was appended
to 3.4 Connection Health -
https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/pull/140/files
The opinion of the authors (and Gengyu WEI’s recent response -
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg08622.html) is that
RFC6455 covers the WebSocket case and does not need to be repeated here.
> When we use 7252, I think applications basically don't need to implement
timeouts or retry mechanisms as the protocol
> provides such things.
RFC7252 provides timeouts and retries because it's implementing a TCP-like
reliability mechanism over UDP - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-2.1
> However, when we use this one, it seems applications will need to have
such mechanisms. Isn't it a bit confusing? I am thinking that
> there need to be some guidance here.
> BTW, PONG is one example.
For coap-tcp-tls, there are multiple early implementations. This has never
been reported as a source of confusion.
>> My sense is that we should treat this as an update to RFC7959 based on
the original language:
> I don't have a strong opinion here. Updating 7959 is fine for me if it's
clearer to CoAP people.
I've merged the change -
https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/pull/138/files
Thanks again for helping us to improve the quality of the draft,
…Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
core(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core