Internet DRAFT - draft-bormann-core-congestion-control
draft-bormann-core-congestion-control
CoRE Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft K. Hartke
Intended status: Informational Universitaet Bremen TZI
Expires: February 1, 2013 July 31, 2012
Congestion Control Principles for CoAP
draft-bormann-core-congestion-control-02
Abstract
The CoAP protocol needs to be implemented in such a way that it does
not cause persistent congestion on the network it uses. Congestion
control is a complex issue -- the proper rationale for the congestion
control mechanisms chosen in CoAP is probably more material than the
CoAP protocol specification itself. This informational document
attempts to pull out the background material and more extensive
considerations behind the CoAP congestion control mechanisms, while
leaving the basic MUSTs and MUST NOTs in the main spec.
Status of this Memo
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 http://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 February 1, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. TCP-Friendliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2. Actually working well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3. Getting actual implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. RFC 2914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. RFC 5405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. draft-eggert-core-congestion-control . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. coap-11 Congestion Control Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. How do other protocols do it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. RTT Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Block Slow-Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Changes Planned for Base Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
1. Introduction
With few exceptions, it is simply incompetent to build an
implementation of a packet-based protocol without considering
congestion control. Unfortunately, detailed, evidence-based
knowledge about congestion control is limited to a small group of
people. It has become customary for these to try to encode their
knowledge into the protocol definitions, in an attempt to replace
competence by conformance.
This has worked relatively well for TCP, not the least because the
art of TCP implementation is itself limited to a rather small group
of experts, which over the years often have acquired some knowledge
of congestion control principles, complementing the desire for
conformance by substantial competence again. Conversely, application
developers are a much larger, much more diverse group. Worse,
protocol complexity for which the rationale is not apparent to the
developers might simply not be implemented. Giving congestion-
unaware developers UDP sockets that are not protected by TCP's
congestion control may lead to disasters.
With this background, an application protocol that is threatening to
be widely deployed and does not rely on the built-in congestion
control properties of TCP presents a serious worry.
This document attempts to present a more extensive rationale for
CoAP's minimal, but effective congestion control design, as well as
some updates to it. This rationale is not included in
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] or [I-D.ietf-core-observe] as the specification
is threatening to become too long with all the rationale and
implementation considerations discussion already included. While the
present document discusses normative statements, it is not intended
to supplement or replace the normative statements in
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] and [I-D.ietf-core-observe], but just to provide
additional explanation.
((Editorial note: the updates to the mandates discussed here
partially still need to make it into the next version of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]. A summary of the updates needed is in
Section 6.))
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
appear in ALL CAPS. These words may also appear in this document in
lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
(Note that this document is itself informational, but it is
discussing normative statements.)
The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
"octet".
1.2. Objectives
The objectives of adding congestion control to the CoAP protocol
specification can be on two different levels, with one additional
(third) consideration.
1.2.1. TCP-Friendliness
Much of the knowledge that the IETF has accumulated on congestion
control focuses on not being worse than its flagship transport
protocol, TCP, and being "fair" to instances of TCP competing for
capacity. Since fairness is not really a well-defined term, we
reduce it to "friendliness".
One objective of this document is to discuss how CoAP can be employed
in a TCP-friendly way, and what are the minimum mandates the protocol
needs to make in order to ensure this for reasonable applications.
(Note that TCP itself is not TCP-friendly when abused, e.g., when
opening 10000 connections in close succession; so there will be no
attempt to stay TCP-friendly when CoAP is abused, either.)
Conclusion: CoAP needs to be TCP-friendly, but probably not more so
than TCP itself.
1.2.2. Actually working well
Making sure that the network continues to work well in the presence
of a strong deployment of active CoAP endpoints is a much harder
objective to achieve. There is only limited knowledge about the
characteristics of the constrained node/networks CoAP will be used
in. They might exhibit congestion in surprising ways.
It may turn out the collected wisdom that has been derived from TCP
deployment experience in the mostly browser-oriented Internet does
not transfer to the Internet of Things, and that we need to invent
new mechanisms for the latter.
But this is research.
Imposing the need for a completed solution that meets requirements
entirely unknown at this time would be an instance of the Fallacy of
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
Perfection [GF].
We will need to accumulate additional knowledge, on a research basis,
and with experience coming in from larger CoAP deployments. One
likely outcome is that constrained node/networks will simply continue
to evolve to be able to cope with TCP and CoAP.
Conclusion: For now, we will focus on staying safe where TCP would
have stayed safe.
1.2.3. Getting actual implementation
The protocol specification may specify whatever it wants; if there is
significant complexity in implementing a mandate and the rationale is
not apparent for implementers, compliance will be but a lucky
coincidence - even more so in implementations for highly constrained
systems. A design that achieves stable operation outside
pathological situations and is implemented is preferable to a
picture-perfect design that is a beautiful part of the specification
and then ignored.
Binding the inevitable complexity of a congestion control scheme to
mechanisms that already have to be implemented for other functional
reasons seems the most fruitful approach for obtaining compliance.
This consideration, together with the main design objective of CoAP -
being implementable on constrained nodes and networks - has been the
overriding design objective.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
2. Input
The word "congestion" occurs more than a hundred times in 1id-
abstracts.txt, indicating that there is a lot of documents under
construction that might become relevant to this document. We select
a few existing documents here and pick up a few salient points.
2.1. RFC 2914
[RFC2914], "Congestion Control Principles", is the BCP that lays out
the basic principles for congestion control in the Internet. While
it does allude to non-TCP protocols, it mainly focuses on TCP and
TCP-like behavior.
2.2. RFC 5405
[RFC5405], "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers",
makes additional points for the usage of UDP. It is also a BCP
document. Its considerations have mostly been made without looking
at specific application protocols, and with a view to guiding
application protocol developers towards congestion-controlled
transport protocols (which is unfortunately not an appropriate choice
for CoAP). It does consider the case of low data-volume applications
(section 3.1.2 is therefore the most relevant section for this
document). It clearly needs to be interpreted intelligently in order
to arrive at congestion control guidelines for a new application
protocol. E.g., it recommends:
Applications that at any time exchange only a small number of UDP
datagrams with a destination SHOULD still control their
transmission behavior by not sending on average more than one UDP
datagram per round-trip time (RTT) to a destination.
Instead, a CoAP client that does receive a response without the need
for a retransmission should be able to send an ensuing request right
away, without the need to do any such rate control -- this keeps the
spirit, but not the letter of that requirement.
While [RFC5405] does provide a good set of "don't forget" points,
some of its requirements appear to attempt to err on the side of
caution, without regards to the specific characteristics of an
application. Fortunately, these requirements are often phrased as a
SHOULD, so it is possible to explain when and why they should not be
heeded.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
2.3. draft-eggert-core-congestion-control
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control], "Congestion Control for the
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", was the original document
that led to CoAP's congestion control design. This document provides
good historical context and should be read in conjunction with the
present document. However, the "credit-based" mechanism proposed in
its section 3.2 is probably too complicated to be implemented in
constrained nodes; CoAP now uses a simpler algorithm that uses the
information the implementation already has to keep (i.e., it is based
on limiting the outstanding exchanges).
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
3. coap-11 Congestion Control Principles
CoAP is a protocol that attempts to minimize the complexity of its
implementation. It is mainly intended for interactions that are not
really flow-shaped, so traditional congestion control mechanisms
simply do not have useful information to work on.
Basic CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-coap] uses a strict lock-step protocol for
its requests and responses (both on the reliability layer with CON/
ACK and one level higher with requests and responses), with
exponential back-off in case of non-delivery. The initial timeout is
dithered between 2 and 3 seconds and grows up to between 32 and 48
seconds.
This is inherently TCP-friendly, similar to the way protocols like
DNS operate.
[I-D.ietf-core-coap] goes on to require:
In order not to cause congestion, Clients (including proxies)
SHOULD strictly limit the number of simultaneous outstanding
interactions that they maintain to a given server (including
proxies). An outstanding interaction is either a CON for which an
ACK has not yet been received but is still expected (message
layer) or a request for which a response has not yet been received
but is still expected (which may both occur at the same time,
counting as one outstanding interaction). A good value for this
limit is the number 1. (Note that [RFC2616], in trying to achieve
a similar objective, did specify a specific number of simultaneous
connections as a ceiling. While revising [RFC2616], this was
found to be impractical for many applications
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]. For the same considerations,
this specification does not mandate a particular maximum number of
outstanding interactions, but instead encourages clients to be
conservative when initiating interactions.)
The rationale for this design is that it is very easy to implement
for a constrained device: a constrained device will already have a
hard limit on the number of slots available for initiating
transactions. Similarly, even back-end systems already need to bind
state to outstanding transactions; adding some form of congestion
control state to these does not require maintaining new objects, just
new fields. In any case, having some form of limit is not elective:
in the text the SHOULD needs to be changed into a MUST, even though
it may not be easy to pinpoint the exact criterion for compliance.
In the following, we refer to the initiator parameter that limits the
number of outstanding interactions as NSTART.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
Clients SHOULD also heed this [RFC5405] guideline:
an application SHOULD perform congestion control over all UDP
traffic it sends to a destination, independently from how it
generates this traffic. For example, an application that forks
multiple worker processes or otherwise uses multiple sockets to
generate UDP datagrams SHOULD perform congestion control over the
aggregate traffic.
Note that [RFC5405] is not explicit here with respect to what it
considers to be a "destination"; it also uses the term "destination
host" when it appears to provide specific discussion about all
protocol entities at an IP address. [RFC5405] duly notes the failure
of the congestion manager approach [RFC3124], but appears to wish it
back into existence. For the purposes of CoAP, probably
"destination" here should be used as with the CoAP term destination
endpoint (i.e., including the UDP port number). Still, an
implementation that e.g. uses a new source port per request (i.e. a
new source endpoint, which is a valid strategy) probably needs to
heed this SHOULD for the entirety of the combination of its own
endpoint abstractions.
For certain exchanges in CoAP, there is a chance that a request would
never elicit a response (e.g., due to a crashed server) but there is
also no (protocol) timeout governing this exchange. Therefore, the
count of outstanding interactions needs to decay at some rate; a
decay rate below that at which TCP sends to a very lossy channel
(e.g., 7 B/s) should be safe.
There are also some special congestion control considerations with
responses to multicast requests, see [I-D.ietf-core-coap] section
4.5; servers are expected to provide estimates for group size and a
target rate as well as a response size. Where those estimates are
hard to come up with, a default response dithering window of 10
seconds should be added to [I-D.ietf-core-coap], as well an
admonition for a client not to use multicast requests when such a
default window would be way off. Finally, a server that receives
another multicast request within the dithering window for a request
that it already is answering SHOULD move the dithering window for its
next response to after the first dithering window.
Finally, the text in [I-D.ietf-core-coap] needs to be reviewed
whether it always clearly separates the discussion for avoiding
network congestion from any mechanisms for avoiding server
overloading.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe] adds one additional behavior: servers may
send NON messages as notifications for state changes, which is
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
outside of exchanges that would be governed by NSTART. This
functionality needs to be supported with some discussion of
congestion control. Generally, servers SHOULD NOT send more than one
NON message every 3 seconds on average ([RFC5405] section 3.1.2), and
they SHOULD NOT send NON messages while waiting for CON messages to
be acknowledged (however, CON retransmissions should send the new
resource state if it has changed since, see [I-D.ietf-core-observe]
section 4.5). There already was a decision to add a requirement to
require sending a CON message at least every 24 hours before
continuing with NON messages; probably the parameter of no more than
a NON per 3 seconds should be increased for servers that check the
client that rarely (e.g., to the rate at which TCP sends into a very
lossy channel, e.g., 7 B/s).
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
4. How do other protocols do it
While CoAP congestion control could be designed from first
principles, it is maybe more realistic to have a look at how other
protocols address its respective version of the problem.
4.1. DNS
The DNS protocol, which in many characteristics is quite close to
CoAP, does not have any explicit mechanisms for congestion control at
all. Many documents consider DNS to be "sporadic messages", not
worth of congestion control.
[RFC4336] says:
(The short flows generated by request-response applications, such
as DNS and SNMP, don't cause congestion in practice, and any
congestion control mechanism would take effect between flows, not
within a single end- to-end transfer of information.)
(This simple packet-for-packet request-response nature is now
changing a bit with DNS being used for voluminous keying information
and growing TXT records.)
4.2. SIP
SIP uses a 0.5 s initial timeout (T1 "RTT Estimate"), and uses binary
exponential increase after that. That is similar to CoAP, but starts
from a smaller initial estimate. CoAP is more conservative (initial
RESPONSE_TIMEOUT is 2 s to 3 s) as we expect latencies in constrained
networks to be higher than in the networks used for telephony.
4.3. TCP
A well-known problem with relying on TCP's built-in congestion
control is that, even with all congestion-control mechanisms in
place, simply multiplying the number of instances may lead to
eventual congestion.
About a decade ago, TCP has increased its initial congestion window
(IW) to about 3 full-size packets, or up to 4 packets with MSS <=
1095 bytes (which is comparable to CoAP's maximum packet sizes)
[RFC3390]. As an Experimental specification, moving to an IW of 10
packets (IW10) is being examined [I-D.ietf-tcpm-initcwnd]. A related
change is also planned in that document that will avoid resetting
this initial window when the SYN or SYN/ACK is lost. This would mean
that it is considered appropriate to send about 15 kB of data on a
single connection without any congestion control feedback whatsoever,
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
except that some SYN+SYN/ACK exchange made it through. While
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-initcwnd] is not yet approved, it is a WG document and
there is widespread feeling of its inevitability even beyond the
experimental status that is being planned now.
The numbers 3, 4, and 10 clearly provide some additional context for
the selection of appropriate values of NSTART.
Conclusion: For now, it is probably appropriate to RECOMMEND keeping
NSTART at or below a value chosen from the space between 3 and 10.
4.4. HTTP
HTTP is running on top of TCP, so it is TCP-friendly by definition.
However, as HTTP 1.0 was using one TCP connection per request, and it
became clear that browser usage would entail fetching many objects in
parallel, congestion was still observed, and client implementations
started to limit the number of simultaneously active connections to
one server. Even when persistent connections were added (and later
codified in HTTP 1.1) this remained a concern. Under 8.1.4
"Practical considerations", [RFC2616] defines a limit on the number
of simultaneous connections from one client to one server.
Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of
simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A
single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections
with any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N
connections to another server or proxy, where N is the number of
simultaneously active users. These guidelines are intended to
improve HTTP response times and avoid congestion.
Intended as a guideline, this has been implemented to the letter in
browser clients for a decade. However, using this as a hard limit is
simply not appropriate for all environments. This led server
implementers to widely deploy workarounds, such as splitting up a
website between multiple servers ("domain sharding") in order to
increase the connection concurrency.
From this historical evidence we can learn that well-meaning
limitations can cause a lot of pain when implemented slavishly. The
httpbis effort has learned this lesson and removed the suggestion for
a hard limit (see [HTTPBISt131], [HTTPBISc715]). Note that it now
says:
Clients (including proxies) SHOULD limit the number of
simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server
(including proxies).
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
Previous revisions of HTTP gave a specific number of connections
as a ceiling, but this was found to be impractical for many
applications. As a result, this specification does not mandate a
particular maximum number of connections, but instead encourages
clients to be conservative when opening multiple connections.
In particular, while using multiple connections avoids the
"head-of- line blocking" problem (whereby a request that takes
significant server-side processing and/or has a large payload can
block subsequent requests on the same connection), each connection
used consumes server resources (sometimes significantly), and
furthermore using multiple connections can cause undesirable side
effects in congested networks.
Note that servers might reject traffic that they deem abusive,
including an excessive number of connections from a client.
Conclusion: There is no doubt that CoAP should follow this hard-
learned expertise.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
5. Advanced CoAP Congestion Control
5.1. RTT Measurement
For an initiator that plans to make multiple requests to one
destination end-point, it may be worthwhile to make RTT measurements
in order to obtain a better RTT estimation than that implied by the
default initial timeout of 2 to 3 s. The usual algorithms for RTT
estimation can be used [RFC6298], with appropriately extended
default/base values. Note that such a mechanism MUST, during idle
periods, decay RTT estimates that are shorter than the basic RTT
estimate back to the basic RTT estimate, until fresh measurements
become available again.
One important consideration not relevant for TCP is the fact that a
CoAP round-trip may include application processing time, which may be
hard to predict, and may differ between different resources available
at the same endpoint. Servers will only trigger early ACKs (with a
non-piggybacked response to be sent later) based on the default
timers, e.g. after 1 s. A client that has arrived at a RTT estimate
much shorter than the 2 to 3 s used as a default SHOULD therefore not
expend all of its retransmissions in the shorter estimated timescale.
It may also be worthwhile to do RTT estimates not just based on
information measured from a single destination endpoint, but also
based on entire hosts (IP addresses) and/or complete prefixes (e.g.,
maintain an RTT estimate for a whole /64). The exact way this can be
used to reduce the amount of state in an initiator is for further
study.
5.2. Block Slow-Start
The CoAP protocol is not optimized for making good use of available
network capacity; given a good offered load, a lightly-loaded network
and some time, a TCP connection will always overtake a series of CoAP
requests.
However, the [I-D.ietf-core-block] protocol can be used by inventive
clients to emulate TCP slow start. E.g., a client can do a request
for block 0, and, if a response comes back without a loss, it can
fire off the requests for block 1 and block 2 at the same time, etc.,
using each response in a similar way that TCP would clock its data
segments based on ACKs, waiving NSTART. Similar approaches may work
to increase channel utilization for any other REST usage that
requires multiple requests.
Clearly, the slow start period MUST terminate on the first loss/
retransmission. How exactly the congestion window is to be
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
maintained after that (a "congestion avoidance period" for CoAP) is a
subject for further study. See also [I-D.mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar]
for fresh approaches to maintaining the necessary variables in TCP.
Another alternative would be an implementation that emulates
[RFC5348].
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
6. Changes Planned for Base Specifications
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]:
1. Change SHOULD in second paragraph of [I-D.ietf-core-coap] 4.7 to
MUST; define protocol parameter NSTART.
2. Add reference to (and/or cite) [RFC5405] guideline about
combining congestion control state for a destination; clarify its
meaning for CoAP using the definition of an endpoint.
3. Add a mechanism of decaying outstanding transactions at a rate of
about 7 B/s.
4. Add default "Leisure" (response dithering windows) of 10 seconds
to [I-D.ietf-core-coap] 8.2, as well as n admonition for a client
not to use multicast requests when such a default window would be
way off.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]:
1. servers SHOULD NOT send more than one NON notification every 3
seconds to an endpoint on average ([RFC5405] section 3.1.2);
define protocol parameter MAXNONRATE.
2. servers SHOULD NOT send NON messages while waiting for CON
messages to be acknowledged (however, CON retransmissions should
send the new resource state if it has changed since, see
[I-D.ietf-core-observe] section 4.5).
3. require sending a CON message at least every 24 hours before
continuing with NON messages.
4. consider increasing MAXNONRATE for servers that check the client
that rarely (e.g., to the rate at which TCP sends into a very
lossy channel, e.g., 7 B/s).
Additional changes have been made to limit the leeway that
implementations have in changing the CoRE protocol parameters; these
changes are already gathered in Section 4.8 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap]
and will not be repeated here.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requirements on IANA. (This section to be
removed by RFC editor.)
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
8. Security Considerations
(TBD. The security considerations of, e.g., [RFC2581], [RFC2914],
and [RFC5405] apply. Some issues are already discussed in the
security considerations of [I-D.ietf-core-coap].)
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
9. Acknowledgements
The first document to examine CoAP congestion control issues in
detail was [I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control], to which this draft
owes a lot.
Michael Scharf did a review of CoAP congestion control issues that
asked a lot of good questions that this draft attempts to answer.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, September 2000.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405,
November 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[GF] Bormann, C., "Garrulity and Fluff", IAB Smart Object
Workshop, 2011, <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/
IAB-uploads/2011/04/Bormann.pdf>.
[HTTPBISc715]
"Changeset 715", October 2009,
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/
715>.
[HTTPBISt131]
"increase connection limit", HTTPBIS ticket #131, closed
2009-12-02, September 2008,
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/131>.
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control]
Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-eggert-core-congestion-control-01 (work in
progress), January 2011.
[I-D.ietf-core-block]
Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, "Blockwise transfers in CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-block-08 (work in progress),
February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-ietf-core-coap-11 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in CoAP",
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
draft-ietf-core-observe-05 (work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]
Fielding, R., Lafon, Y., and J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1, part
1: Message Routing and Syntax"",
draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-20 (work in progress),
July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-initcwnd]
Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
"Increasing TCP's Initial Window",
draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-04 (work in progress), June 2012.
[I-D.mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar]
Mathis, M., "Laminar TCP and the case for refactoring TCP
congestion control", draft-mathis-tcpm-tcp-laminar-01
(work in progress), July 2012.
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 2581, April 1999.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3124] Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager",
RFC 3124, June 2001.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC4336] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement
for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
RFC 4336, March 2006.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
RFC 5348, September 2008.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298,
June 2011.
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CoAP Congestion Control July 2012
Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Klaus Hartke
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63905
Email: hartke@tzi.org
Bormann & Hartke Expires February 1, 2013 [Page 22]
