| lpwan Working Group | A. Minaburo |
| Internet-Draft | Acklio |
| Intended status: Informational | L. Toutain |
| Expires: September 5, 2018 | Institut MINES TELECOM; IMT Atlantique |
| March 04, 2018 |
LPWAN Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for CoAP
draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-03
This draft defines the way SCHC header compression can be applied to CoAP headers. CoAP header structure differs from IPv6 and UDP protocols since the CoAP Header is flexible header with a variable number of options themself of a variable length. Another important difference is the asymmetry in the header information used for request and response messages. This draft takes into account the fact that a thing can play the role of a CoAP client, a CoAP client or both roles.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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.
CoAP [rfc7252] is an implementation of the REST architecture for constrained devices. A Gateway between CoAP and HTTP can be easily built since both protocols uses the same address space (URL), caching mechanisms and methods.
Nevertheless, if limited, the size of a CoAP header may be too large for LPWAN constraints and some compression may be needed to reduce the header size.
[I-D.toutain-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc] defines a header compression mechanism for LPWAN network based on a static context. The context is said static since the field description composing the Rules and the context are not learned during the packet exchanges but are previously defined. The context(s) is(are) known by both ends before transmission.
A context is composed of a set of rules that are referenced by Rule IDs (identifiers). A rule contains an ordered list of the fields descriptions containing à field ID (FID) and its position when repeated, a direction indicator (DI) (upstream, downstream and bidirectional) and some associated Target Values (TV) which are expected in the message header. A Matching Operator (MO) is associated to each header field description. The rule is selected if all the MOs fit the TVs. In that case, a Compression/Decompression Action (CDA) associated to each field defines the link between the compressed and decompressed value for each of the header fields.
This document describes how the rules can be applied to CoAP flows. Compression of the CoAP header may be done in conjunction with the above layers or independantly.
CoAP differs from IPv6 and UDP protocols on the following aspects:
This section discusses of the compression of the different CoAP header fields. These are just examples. The compression should take into account the nature of the traffic and not only the field values. Next chapter will define some compression rules for some common exchanges.
This field is bidirectional and can be elided during the SCHC compression, since it always contains the same value. It appears only in first position.
FID FL FP DI Value MO CDA Sent ver 2 1 bi 1 equal not-sent
This field can be managed bidirectionally or unidirectionally.Several strategies can be applied to this field regarding the values used:
FID FL FP DI Target Value MO CDA Sent type 2 1 bi NON equal not-sent
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent type 2 1 up CON equal not-sent type 2 1 dw [ACK,RST] match-mapping mapping-sent [1]
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent type 2 1 bi ignore send-value [2]
This field is bi-directional.
Several strategies can be applied to this field regarding the values:
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent TKL 4 1 bi value ignore send-value [4]
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent TKL 4 1 bi 0x0 MSB(2) LSB(2) [2]
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent TKL 4 1 bi ignore value-sent [4]
This field is bidirectional, but compression can be enhanced using DI.
The CoAP Code field defines a tricky way to ensure compatibility with HTTP values. Nevertheless only 21 values are defined by [rfc7252] compared to the 255 possible values.
+------+------------------------------+-----------+
| Code | Description | Mapping |
+------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 0.00 | | 0x00 |
| 0.01 | GET | 0x01 |
| 0.02 | POST | 0x02 |
| 0.03 | PUT | 0x03 |
| 0.04 | DELETE | 0x04 |
| 0.05 | FETCH | 0x05 |
| 0.06 | PATCH | 0x06 |
| 0.07 | iPATCH | 0x07 |
| 2.01 | Created | 0x08 |
| 2.02 | Deleted | 0x09 |
| 2.03 | Valid | 0x0A |
| 2.04 | Changed | 0x0B |
| 2.05 | Content | 0x0C |
| 4.00 | Bad Request | 0x0D |
| 4.01 | Unauthorized | 0x0E |
| 4.02 | Bad Option | 0x0F |
| 4.03 | Forbidden | 0x10 |
| 4.04 | Not Found | 0x11 |
| 4.05 | Method Not Allowed | 0x12 |
| 4.06 | Not Acceptable | 0x13 |
| 4.12 | Precondition Failed | 0x14 |
| 4.13 | Request Entity Too Large | 0x15 |
| 4.15 | Unsupported Content-Format | 0x16 |
| 5.00 | Internal Server Error | 0x17 |
| 5.01 | Not Implemented | 0x18 |
| 5.02 | Bad Gateway | 0x19 |
| 5.03 | Service Unavailable | 0x1A |
| 5.04 | Gateway Timeout | 0x1B |
| 5.05 | Proxying Not Supported | 0x1C |
+------+------------------------------+-----------+
Figure 1: Example of CoAP code mapping
Figure 1 gives a possible mapping, it can be changed to add new codes or reduced if some values are never used by both ends. It could efficiently be coded on 5 bits.
Even if the number of code can be increase with other RFC, implementations may use a limited number of values, which can help to reduce the number of bits sent on the LPWAN.
The number of code may vary over time, some new codes may be introduced or some applications use a limited number of values.
The client and the server do not use the same values. This asymmetry can be exploited to reduce the size sent on the LPWAN.
The field can be treated differently in upstream than in downstream. If the Thing is a client an entry can be set on the uplink message with a code matching for 0.0X values and another for downlink values for Y.ZZ codes. It is the opposite if the thing is a server.
If the ES always sends or receives requests with the same method, the Code field can be elided. The entry below shows a rule for a client sending only GET request.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent code 8 1 up GET equal not-sent
If the client may send different methods, a matching-list can be applied. For table Figure 1, 3 bits are necessary, but it could be less if fewer methods are used. Example below gives an example where the ES is a server and receives only GET and POST requests.
FID FL FP DI Target Value MO CDA Sent code 8 1 dw [0.01, 0.02] match-mapping mapping-sent [1]
The same approach can be applied to responses.
This field is bidirectional.
Message ID is used for two purposes:
In LPWAN, since a message can be received by several radio gateway, some LPWAN technologies include a sequence number in L2 to avoid duplicate frames. Therefore if the message does not need to be acknowledged (NON or RST message), the Message ID field can be avoided.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent Mid 8 1 bi ignore not-sent
The decompressor must generate a value.
[[Note; check id this field is not used by OSCOAP .]]
To optimize information sent on the LPWAN, shorter values may be used during the exchange, but Message ID values generated a common CoAP implementation will not take into account this limitation. Before the compression, a proxy may be needed to reduce the size.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent Mid 8 1 bi 0x0000 MSB(12) LSB(4) [4]
Otherwise if no compression is possible, the field has to be sent
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent Mid 8 1 bi ignore value-sent [8]
This field is bi-directional.
Token is used to identify transactions and varies from one transaction to another. Therefore, it is usually necessary to send the value of the token field on the LPWAN network. The optimization will occur by using small values.
Common CoAP implementations may generate large tokens, even if shorter tokens could be used regarding the LPWAN characteristics. A proxy may be needed to reduce the size of the token before compression.
The size of the compress token sent is known by a combination of the Token Length field and the rule entry. For instance, with the entry below:
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent tkl 4 1 bi 2 equal not-sent token 8 1 bi 0x00 MSB(12) LSB(4) [4]
The uncompressed token is 2 bytes long, but the compressed size will be 4 bits.
This field is unidirectional and must not be set to bidirectional in a rule entry. It is used only by the server to inform the client about of the payload type and is never found in client requests.
If single value is expected by the client, the TV contains that value and MO is set to “equal” and the CDF is set to “not-sent”. The examples below describe the rules for an ES acting as a server.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent content 16 1 up value equal not-sent
If several possible value are expected by the client, a matching-list can be used.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent content 16 1 up [50, 41] match-mapping mapping-sent [1]
Otherwise the value can be sent.The value-sent CDF in the compressor do not send the option type and the decompressor reconstruct it regarding the position in the rule.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent content 16 1 up ignore value-sent [0-16]
This field is unidirectional and must not be set to bidirectional in a rule entry. It is used only by the client to inform of the possible payload type and is never found in server response.
The number of accept options is not limited and can vary regarding the usage. To be selected a rule must contain the exact number about accept options with their positions. Since the order in which the Accept value are sent, the position order can be modified. The rule below
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent accept 16 1 up 41 egal not-sent accept 16 2 up 50 egal not-sent
will be selected only if two accept options are in the CoAP header if this order.
The rule below:
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent accept 16 0 up 41 egal not-sent accept 16 0 up 50 egal not-sent
will accept a-only CoAP messages with 2 accept options, but the order will not influence the rule selection. The decompression will reconstruct the header regarding the rule order.
Otherwise a matching-list can be applied to the different values, in that case the order is important to recover the appropriate value and the position must be clearly indicate.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent accept 16 1 up [50,41] match-mapping mapping-sent [1] accept 16 2 up [50,61] match-mapping mapping-sent [1] accept 16 3 up [61,71] match-mapping mapping-sent [1]
Finally, the option can be explicitly sent.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent accept 1 up ignore value-sent
This field is unidirectional and must not be set to bidirectional in a rule entry. It is used only by the server to inform of the caching duration and is never found in client requests.
If the duration is known by both ends, value can be elided on the LPWAN.
A matching list can be used if some wellknown values are defined.
Otherwise the option length and value can be sent on the LPWAN.
[[note: we can reduce (or create a new option) the unit to minute, second is small for LPWAN ]]
This fields are unidirectional and must not be set to bidirectional in a rule entry. They are used only by the client to access to a specific resource and are never found in server response.
The Matching Operator behavior has not changed, but the value must take a position value, if the entry is repeated :
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent URI-Path 1 up foo equal not-sent URI-Path 2 up bar equal not-sent
Figure 2: Position entry.
For instance, the rule Figure 2 matches with /foo/bar, but not /bar/foo.
When the length is not clearly indicated in the rule, the value length must be sent with the field data, which means for CoAP to send directly the CoAP option with length and value.
For instance for a CoMi path /c/X6?k=”eth0” the rule can be set to:
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent URI-Path 1 up c equal not-sent URI-Path 2 up ignore value-sent URI-Query 1 up k= MSB (16) LSB
Figure 3: CoMi URI compression
Figure 3 shows the parsing and the compression of the URI. where c is not sent. The second element is sent with the length (i.e. 0x2 X 6) followed by the query option (i.e. 0x05 “eth0”).
A Mapping list can be used to reduce size of variable Paths or Queries. In that case, to optimize the compression, several elements can be regrouped into a single entry. Numbering of elements do not change, MO comparison is set with the first element of the matching.
FID FL FP DI TV MO CDA Sent
URI-Path 1 up {0:"/c/c", equal not-sent
1:"/c/d"
URI-Path 3 up ignore value-sent
URI-Query 1 up k= MSB (16) LSB
Figure 4: complex path example
For instance, the following Path /foo/bar/variable/stable can leads to the rule defined Figure 4.
These fields are unidirectional and must not be set to bidirectional in a rule entry. They are used only by the client to access to a specific resource and are never found in server response.
If the field value must be sent, TV is not set, MO is set to “ignore” and CDF is set to “value-sent. A mapping can also be used.
Otherwise the TV is set to the value, MO is set to “equal” and CDF is set to “not-sent”
These fields are unidirectional.
These fields values cannot be stored in a rule entry. They must always be sent with the request.
[[Can include OSCOAP Object security in that category ]]
Block option should be avoided in LPWAN. The minimum size of 16 bytes can be incompatible with some LPWAN technologies.
[[Note: do we recommand LPWAN fragmentation since the smallest value of 16 is too big?]]
[rfc7641] defines the Observe option. The TV is not set, MO is set to “ignore” and the CDF is set to “value-sent”. SCHC does not limit the maximum size for this option (3 bytes). To reduce the transmission size either the Thing implementation should limit the value increase or a proxy can be used limit the increase.
Since RST message may be sent to inform a server that the client do not require Observe response, a rule must allow the transmission of this message.
[rfc7967] defines an No-Response option limiting the responses made by a server to a request. If the value is not by both ends, then TV is set to this value, MO is set to “equal” and CDF is set to “not-sent”.
Otherwise, if the value is changing over time, TV is not set, MO is set to “ignore” and CDF to “value-sent”. A matching list can also be used to reduce the size.
In this first scenario, the LPWAN compressor receives from outside client a POST message, which is immediately acknowledged by the Thing. For this simple scenario, the rules are described Figure 5.
Rule ID 1 +-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-------------++------------+ | Field |FL|FP|DI|Target| Match | CDA || Sent | | | | | |Value | Opera. | || [bits] | +-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-------------++------------+ |CoAP version | | |bi| 01 |equal |not-sent || | |CoAP version | | |bi| 01 |equal |not-sent || | |CoAP Type | | |bi| |ignore |value-sent ||TT | |CoAP TKL | | |bi| 0 |equal |not-sent || | |CoAP Code | | |bi| ML1 |match-map|matching-sent|| CC CCC | |CoAP MID | | |bi| 0000 |MSB(7 ) |LSB(9) || M-ID| |CoAP Uri-Path| | |dw| path |equal 1 |not-sent || | +-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-------------++------------+
Figure 5: CoAP Context to compress header without token
The version and Token Length fields are elided. Code has shrunk to 5 bits using the matching list (as the one given Figure 1: 0.01 is value 0x01 and 2.05 is value 0x0c) Message-ID has shrunk to 9 bits to preserve alignment on byte boundary. The most significant bit must be set to 0 through a CoAP proxy. Uri-Path contains a single element indicated in the matching operator.
Figure 6 shows the time diagram of the exchange. A LPWAN Application Server sends a CON message. Compression reduces the header sending only the Type, a mapped code and the least 9 significant bits of Message ID. The receiver decompresses the header. .
The CON message is a request, therefore the LC process to a dynamic mapping. When the ES receives the ACK message, this will not initiate locally a message ID mapping since it is a response. The LC receives the ACK and uncompressed it to restore the original value. Dynamic Mapping context lifetime follows the same rules as message ID duration.
End System LPWA LC
| |
| rule id=1 |<--------------------
|<-------------------| +-+-+--+----+------+
<------------------- | TTCC CCCM MMMM MMMM| |1|0| 4|0.01|0x0034|
+-+-+--+----+-------+ | 0000 0010 0011 0100| | 0xb4 p a t|
|1|0| 1|0.01|0x0034 | | | | h |
| 0xb4 p a t | | | +------+
| h | | |
+------+ | |
| |
| |
---------------------->| rule id=1 |
+-+-+--+----+--------+ |------------------->|
|1|2| 0|2.05| 0x0034 | | TTCC CCCM MMMM MMMM|--------------------->
+-+-+--+----+--------+ | 1001 1000 0011 0100| +-+-+--+----+------+
| | |1|2| 0|2.05|0x0034|
v v +-+-+--+----+------+
Figure 6: Compression with global addresses
The message can be further optimized by setting some fields unidirectional, as described in Figure 7. Note that Type is no more sent in the compressed format, Compressed Code size in not changed in that example (8 values are needed to code all the requests and 21 to code all the responses in the matching list Figure 1)
Rule ID 2
+-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+------------++------------+
| Field |FL|FP|DI|Target| MO | CDA || Sent |
| | | | |Value | | || [bits] |
+-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+------------++------------+
|CoAP version | | |bi|01 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |dw|CON |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |up| ACK |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP TKL | | |bi|0 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |dw|ML2 |match-map|mapping-sent||CCCC C |
|CoAP Code | | |up|ML3 |match-map|mapping-sent||CCCC C |
|CoAP MID | | |bi|0000 |MSB(5) |LSB(11) || M-ID |
|CoAP Uri-Path| | |dw|path |equal 1 |not-sent || |
+-------------+--+--+--+------+---------+------------++------------+
ML1 = {CON : 0, ACK:1} ML2 = {POST:0, 2.04:1, 0.00:3}
Figure 7: CoAP Context to compress header without token
In that example, the Thing is using CoMi and sends queries for 2 SID.
CON
MID=0x0012 | |
POST | |
Accept X | |
/c/k=AS |------------------------>|
| |
| |
|<------------------------| ACK MID=0x0012
| | 0.00
| |
| |
|<------------------------| CON
| | MID=0X0034
| | Content-Format X
ACK MID=0x0034 |------------------------>|
0.00
Rule ID 3
+--------------+--+--+--+------+--------+-----------++------------+
| Field |FL|FP|DI|Target| MO | CDA || Sent |
| | | | |Value | | || [bits] |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+--------+-----------++------------+
|CoAP version | | |bi| 01 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |up| CON |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |dw| ACK |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP TKL | | |bi| 1 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |up| POST |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |dw| 0.00 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP MID | | |bi| 0000 |MSB(8) |LSB ||MMMMMMMM |
|CoAP Token | | |up| |ignore |send-value ||TTTTTTTT |
|CoAP Uri-Path | | |dw| /c |equal 1 |not-sent || |
|CoAP Uri-query| | |dw| ML4 |equal 1 |not-sent ||P |
|CoAP Content | | |up| X |equal |not-sent || |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+--------+-----------++------------+
Rule ID 4
+--------------+--+--+--+------+--------+-----------++------------+
| Field |FL|FP|DI|Target| MO | CDA || Sent |
| | | | |Value | | || [bits] |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+--------+-----------++------------+
|CoAP version | | |bi| 01 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |dw| CON |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |up| ACK |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP TKL | | |bi| 1 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |dw| 2.05 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |up| 0.00 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP MID | | |bi| 0000 |MSB(8) |LSB ||MMMMMMMM |
|CoAP Token | | |dw| |ignore |send-value||TTTTTTTT |
|COAP Accept | | |dw| X |equal |not-sent || |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+---------+----------++------------+
alternative rule:
Rule ID 4
+--------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-----------++------------+
| Field |FL|FP|DI|Target| MO | CDA || Sent |
| | | | |Value | | || [bits] |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-----------++------------+
|CoAP version | | |bi| 01 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Type | | |bi| ML1 |match-map|match-sent ||t |
|CoAP TKL | | |bi| 1 |equal |not-sent || |
|CoAP Code | | |up| ML2 |match-map|match-sent || cc |
|CoAP Code | | |dw| ML3 |match-map|match-sent || cc |
|CoAP MID | | |bi| 0000 |MSB(8) |LSB ||MMMMMMMM |
|CoAP Token | | |dw| |ignore |send-value ||TTTTTTTT |
|CoAP Uri-Path | | |dw| /c |equal 1 |not-sent || |
|CoAP Uri-query| | |dw| ML4 |equal 1 |not-sent ||P |
|CoAP Content | | |up| X |equal |not-sent || |
|COAP Accept | | |dw| x |equal |not-sent || |
+--------------+--+--+--+------+---------+-----------++------------+
ML1 {CON:0, ACK:1} ML2 {POST:0, 0.00: 1} ML3 {2.05:0, 0.00:1}
ML4 {NULL:0, k=AS:1, K=AZE:2}
| [I-D.toutain-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc] | Minaburo, A. and L. Toutain, "LPWAN Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for IPv6 and UDP", Internet-Draft draft-toutain-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-00, September 2016. |
| [rfc7252] | Shelby, Z., Hartke, K. and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014. |
| [rfc7641] | Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641, DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015. |
| [rfc7967] | Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A. and T. Bose, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Option for No Server Response", RFC 7967, DOI 10.17487/RFC7967, August 2016. |