Misplaced Pages

#525474

61-675: Amongst other uses, it is the recommended data serialization layer for the CoAP Internet of Things protocol suite and the data format on which COSE messages are based. It is also used in the Client-to-Authenticator Protocol (CTAP) within the scope of the FIDO2 project. CBOR was inspired by MessagePack , which was developed and promoted by Sadayuki Furuhashi. CBOR extended MessagePack, particularly by allowing to distinguish text strings from byte strings, which

122-450: A serial number . Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document. Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated , obsolete , or obsoleted by the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process

183-424: A " magic number " to distinguish the beginning of CBOR data. The all-ones tag values 0xffff, 0xffffffff and 0xffffffffffffffff are reserved to indicate the absence of a tag in a CBOR decoding library; they should never appear in a data stream. The break marker pseudo-item may not be the payload of a tag. This major type is used to encode various special values that do not fit into the other categories. It follows

244-432: A 4-byte extended count of 0x00001234 are exactly equivalent. This is not the case for floating-point values. Short counts 28–30 are reserved, like for all other major types. A short count of 31 encodes the special "break" marker which terminates an indefinite-length encoding. This is related to, but different from, the use with other major types where a short count of 31 begins an indefinite length encoding. This

305-526: A common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC  2119 and 8174 ), augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF) ( RFC  5234 ) as a meta-language, and simple text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand. The RFC series contains three sub-series for IETF RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP) is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI)

366-418: A detached response is called "separate response". In contrast, transmitting the response directly in the acknowledgement is called "piggybacked response" which is expected to be preferred for efficiency reasons. Option delta: Option length: Option value: RFC 7641, RFC 7959 https://docs.rs/coap/ In many CoAP application domains it is essential to have the ability to address several CoAP resources as

427-647: A group, instead of addressing each resource individually (e.g. to turn on all the CoAP-enabled lights in a room with a single CoAP request triggered by toggling the light switch). To address this need, the IETF has developed an optional extension for CoAP in the form of an experimental RFC: Group Communication for CoAP - RFC 7390 This extension relies on IP multicast to deliver the CoAP request to all group members. The use of multicast has certain benefits such as reducing

488-522: A new submission which will receive a new serial number. Standards track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents. Only the IETF, represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), can approve standards-track RFCs. If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number. The definitive list of Internet Standards

549-419: A payload (a single following item), and the two are considered one item in e.g. an array or a map. The tag number provides additional type information for the following item, beyond what the 3-bit major type can provide. For example, a tag of 1 indicates that the following number is a Unix time value. A tag of 2 indicates that the following byte string encodes an unsigned bignum . A tag of 32 indicates that

610-587: A similar fashion; BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which RFC or RFCs may change over time). An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation ( RFC  1591 ). Some informational RFCs formed the FYI sub-series. An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to

671-405: A simple, binary header format. CoAP is by default bound to UDP and optionally to DTLS , providing a high level of communications security. When bound to UDP, the entire message must fit within a single datagram. When used with 6LoWPAN as defined in RFC 4944, messages should fit into a single IEEE 802.15.4 frame to minimize fragmentation. The smallest CoAP message is 4 bytes in length, if

SECTION 10

#1732782894526

732-626: Is a publication in a series from the principal technical development and standards-setting bodies for the Internet , most prominently the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). An RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It

793-591: Is a sub-series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC ; 1150 (FYI 1). In 2011, RFC  6360 obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC  2026 (BCP 9). In 2011 RFC  6410 (a new part of BCP 9) reduced the standards track to two maturity levels. There are five streams of RFCs: IETF , IRTF , IAB , independent submission , and Editorial . Only

854-408: Is another of the four first of what were ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center ( InterNIC ), which was managed by Elizabeth J. Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network information. From 1969 until 1998, Jon Postel served as the RFC editor . On his death in 1998, his obituary was published as RFC  2468 . Following

915-413: Is documented in RFC  2026 ( The Internet Standards Process, Revision 3 ). The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an Internet Draft without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from

976-403: Is followed by zero or more definite-length strings of the same type, terminated by a "break" marker byte. The value of the item is the concatenation of the values of the enclosed items. Items of a different type, or nested indefinite-length strings, are not permitted. Text strings must be individually well-formed; UTF-8 characters may not be split across items. Type 4 has a count field encoding

1037-409: Is intended for use as a client-local identifier to match requests and responses, especially for concurrent requests. Matching requests and responses is not done with the message ID because a response may be sent in a different message than the acknowledgement (which uses the message ID for matching). For example, this could be done to prevent retransmissions if obtaining the result takes some time. Such

1098-565: Is intended for use in resource-constrained Internet devices, such as wireless sensor network nodes. CoAP is designed to easily translate to HTTP for simplified integration with the web, while also meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity. Multicast, low overhead, and simplicity are important for Internet of things (IoT) and machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, which tend to be embedded and have much less memory and power supply than traditional Internet devices have. Therefore, efficiency

1159-634: Is not an item, and may not appear in a defined-length payload. IANA has created the CBOR tags registry, located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml . Registrations must contain the template outlined below. The URL can point to an Internet-Draft or a web page. CoAP Constrained Application Protocol ( CoAP ) is a specialized UDP-based Internet application protocol for constrained devices, as defined in RFC 7252 . It enables those constrained devices called "nodes" to communicate with

1220-502: Is obsoleted by various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status. However, since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those earlier versions, such as RFC  1267 , have been designated historic. Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC

1281-562: Is submitted as plain ASCII text and is published in that form, but may also be available in other formats . For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata, status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: rfc:5000. The official International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of

SECTION 20

#1732782894526

1342-552: Is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts, information, or, occasionally, engineering humor. The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as Internet Standards . However, many RFCs are informational or experimental in nature and are not standards. The RFC system was invented by Steve Crocker in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of ARPANET . RFCs have since become official documents of Internet specifications , communications protocols , procedures, and events. According to Crocker,

1403-492: Is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list. When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD n , may be RFCs x and y at a given time, but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC z instead. For example, in 2007 RFC  3700

1464-586: Is very important. CoAP can run on most devices that support UDP or a UDP analogue. The Internet Engineering Task Force ( IETF ) Constrained RESTful Environments Working Group ( CoRE ) has done the major standardization work for this protocol. In order to make the protocol suitable to IoT and M2M applications, various new functions have been added. The core of the protocol is specified in RFC   7252 . Various extensions have been proposed, particularly: CoAP makes use of two message types, requests and responses, using

1525-692: The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside sources. A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task into several roles, including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in 2012. The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style. In January 2010, the RFC Editor function

1586-627: The IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. The IAB publishes informational documents relating to policy or architecture. The IRTF publishes the results of research, either as informational documents or as experiments. Independent submissions are published at the discretion of the Independent Submissions Editor. Non-IETF documents are reviewed by the IESG for conflicts with IETF work. IRTF and independent  RFCs generally contain relevant information or experiments for

1647-568: The IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups , which first publish an Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs. The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies. Most RFCs use

1708-577: The Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work. compare RFC  4846 , 5742 and 5744 . The Editorial Stream is used to effect editorial policy changes across the RFC series (see RFC  9280 ). The official source for RFCs on the World Wide Web is the RFC Datatracker. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a URL of the form https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5000, shown for RFC  5000 . Every RFC

1769-593: The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments ( OSCORE ) protocol which provides security for CoAP at the application layer. Although the protocol standard includes provisions for mitigating the threat of DDoS amplification attacks, these provisions are not implemented in practice, resulting in the presence of over 580,000 targets primarily located in China and attacks up to 320 Gbit/s. RFC (identifier) A Request for Comments ( RFC )

1830-436: The RFC Editor. A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well. The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only informational , but which do not affect over

1891-826: The RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). It also established a new Editorial Stream for the RFC Series and concluded the RSOC. The role of the RSE was changed to the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). In September 2022, Alexis Rossi was appointed to that position. Requests for Comments were originally produced in non- reflowable text format. In August 2019, the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes. The RFC Editor assigns each RFC

CBOR - Misplaced Pages Continue

1952-451: The RFC series is 2070-1721. Not all RFCs are standards. Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: Informational , Experimental , Best Current Practice , Standards Track , or Historic . Once submitted, accepted, and published, an RFC cannot be changed. Errata may be submitted, which are published separately. More significant changes require

2013-652: The RFC series to the Network Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project. Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of what were Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET. The Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at Stanford Research Institute , directed by Douglas Engelbart ,

2074-425: The corresponding indefinite-length header bytes. Type 5 is similar but encodes a map (also called a dictionary, or associative array) of key/value pairs. In this case, the count encodes the number of pairs of items. If the indefinite-length encoding is used, there must be an even number of items before the "break" marker byte. A semantic tag is another atomic type for which the count is the value, but it also has

2135-465: The count field is the value; there is no payload. Type 0 encodes positive or unsigned integers, with values up to 2−1. Type 1 encodes negative integers, with a value of −1−count, for values from −2 to −1. Types 2 and 3 have a count field which encodes the length in bytes of the payload. Type 2 is an unstructured byte string. Type 3 is a UTF-8 text string. A short count of 31 indicates an indefinite-length string. This

2196-509: The count is the length of the payload. For types 4 (array) and 5 (map), the count is the number of items (pairs) in the payload. For type 6 (tag), the payload is a single item and the count is a numeric tag number which describes the enclosed item. Each data item's behaviour is defined by the major type and count. The major type is used for selecting the main behaviour or type of each data item. The 5-bit short count field encodes counts 0–23 directly. Short counts of 24–27 indicate

2257-456: The count value is in a following 8, 16, 32 or 64-bit extended count field. Values 28–30 are not assigned and must not be used. Types are divided into "atomic" types 0–1 and 6–7, for which the count field encodes the value directly, and non-atomic types 2–5, for which the count field encodes the size of the following payload field. A short count of 31 is used with non-atomic types 2–5 to indicate an indefinite length;

2318-530: The documents "shape the Internet's inner workings and have played a significant role in its success," but are not widely known outside the community. Outside of the Internet community, other documents also called requests for comments have been published, as in U.S. Federal government work, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of

2379-706: The expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the University of Southern California (USC) Information Sciences Institute (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB. Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005. Bob Braden took over

2440-485: The following text string is a URI as defined in RFC   3986 . RFC   8746 defines tags 64–87 to encode homogeneous arrays of fixed-size integer or floating-point values as byte strings. The tag 55799 is allocated to mean "CBOR data follows". This is a semantic no-op , but allows the corresponding tag bytes d9 d9 f7 to be prepended to a CBOR file without affecting its meaning. These bytes may be used as

2501-445: The group members, collects the replies from them, and sends back an aggregated reply to the client. CoAP defines four security modes: Research has been conducted on optimizing DTLS by implementing security associates as CoAP resources rather than using DTLS as a security wrapper for CoAP traffic. This research has indicated that improvements of up to 6.5 times none optimized implementations. In addition to DTLS, RFC8613 defines

CBOR - Misplaced Pages Continue

2562-416: The modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion. The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC. In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via

2623-426: The newly operational ARPANET. RFC  1 , titled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969. Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early working group discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and Jeff Rulifson . In RFC  3 , which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing

2684-413: The number of following items, followed by that many items. The items need not all be the same type; some programming languages call this a "tuple" rather than an "array". Alternatively, an indefinite-length encoding with a short count of 31 may be used. This continues until a "break" marker byte of 255. Because nested items may also use the indefinite encoding, the parser must pair the break markers with

2745-427: The number of packets needed to deliver the request to the members. However, multicast also has its limitations such as poor reliability and being cache-unfriendly. An alternative method for CoAP group communication that uses unicasts instead of multicasts relies on having an intermediary where the groups are created. Clients send their group requests to the intermediary, which in turn sends individual unicast requests to

2806-427: The payload is implied by the datagram length. The first 4 bytes are mandatory in all CoAP datagrams, they constitute the fixed-size header. These fields can be extracted from these 4 bytes in C via these macros: The three most significant bits form a number known as the "class", which is analogous to the class of HTTP status codes . The five least significant bits form a code that communicates further detail about

2867-431: The payload is the following items until a "break" marker byte of 255 (type=7, short count=31). A short count of 31 is not permitted with the other atomic types 0, 1 or 6. Type 6 (tag) is unusual in that its count field encodes a value directly, but also has a payload field (which always consists of a single item). Extended counts, and all multi-byte values, are encoded in network (big-endian) byte order . For integers,

2928-689: The program were included the RFC Editor Model (Version 3) as defined in RFC  9280 , published in June 2022. Generally, the new model is intended to clarify responsibilities and processes for defining and implementing policies related to the RFC series and the RFC Editor function. Changes in the new model included establishing the position of the RFC Consulting Editor, the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), and

2989-427: The recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult ( RFC  2827 : " Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing ") is BCP 38 . A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, RFC  821 ( SMTP ) itself

3050-420: The request or response. The entire code is typically communicated in the form class.code . You can find the latest CoAP request/response codes at [1] , though the below list gives some examples: Every request carries a token (but it may be zero length) whose value was generated by the client. The server must echo every token value without any modification back to the client in the corresponding response. It

3111-429: The role of RFC project lead, while Joyce K. Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006. In July 2007, streams of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet Engineering Steering Group . The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents comes from

SECTION 50

#1732782894526

3172-416: The same encoding-size rules as the other atomic types (0, 1, and 6), but the count field is interpreted differently. The values 20–23 are used to encode the special values false, true, null , and undefined . Values 0–19 are not currently defined. A short count of 24 indicates a 1-byte extended count follows which can be used in future to encode additional special values. To simplify decoding,

3233-539: The seminal ARPANET project. Today, it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and – to some extent – the global community of computer network researchers in general. The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers. Unlike

3294-401: The token, options and payload fields are omitted, i.e. if it only consists of the CoAP header. The header is followed by the token value (0 to 8 bytes) which may be followed by a list of options in an optimized type–length–value format. Any bytes after the header, token and options (if any) are considered the message payload, which is prefixed by the one-byte "payload marker" (0xFF). The length of

3355-432: The values 0–31 may not be encoded in this form. None of the values 32–255 are currently defined. Short counts of 25, 26 or 27 indicate a following extended count field is to be interpreted as a (big-endian) 16-, 32- or 64-bit IEEE floating point value. These are the same sizes as an extended count, but are interpreted differently. In particular, for all other major types, a 2-byte extended count of 0x1234 and

3416-422: The wider Internet using similar protocols. CoAP is designed for use between devices on the same constrained network (e.g., low-power, lossy networks), between devices and general nodes on the Internet, and between devices on different constrained networks both joined by an internet. CoAP is also being used via other mechanisms, such as SMS on mobile communication networks. CoAP is an application-layer protocol that

3477-572: The wire data . The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like BCP 9, or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some are on the standards track. The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance,

3538-449: Was an Internet Standard—STD 1—and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC  5000 , so RFC  3700 changed to Historic , RFC  5000 became an Internet Standard, and as of May 2008 STD 1 is RFC  5000 . as of December 2013 RFC  5000 is replaced by RFC  7100 , updating RFC  2026 to no longer use STD 1. (Best Current Practices work in

3599-485: Was implemented in 2013 in MessagePack. CBOR encoded data is seen as a stream of data items. Each data item consists of a header byte containing a 3-bit type and 5-bit short count. This is followed by an optional extended count (if the short count is in the range 24–27), and an optional payload. For types 0, 1, and 7, there is no payload; the count is the value. For types 2 (byte string) and 3 (text string),

3660-493: Was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor. In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor (RSE). Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was created. In 2020, the IAB convened the RFC Editor Future Development program to discuss potential changes to the RFC Editor model. The results of

3721-458: Was often just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else for which the RFC series is used today. The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate) retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights. An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds

SECTION 60

#1732782894526
#525474