Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 9177                                        Orange
Category: Standards Track                                   J. Shallow
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               March 2022


  Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options
                     Supporting Robust Transmission

 Abstract

   This document specifies alternative Constrained Application Protocol
   (CoAP) block-wise transfer options: Q-Block1 and Q-Block2.

   These options are similar to, but distinct from, the CoAP Block1 and
   Block2 options defined in RFC 7959.  The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2
   options are not intended to replace the Block1 and Block2 options but
   rather have the goal of supporting Non-confirmable (NON) messages for
   large amounts of data with fewer packet interchanges.  Also, the
   Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options support faster recovery should any of
   the blocks get lost in transmission.

 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
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9177.

 Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

 Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Alternative CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options
     3.1.  CoAP Response Code (4.08) Usage
     3.2.  Applicability Scope
   4.  The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options
     4.1.  Properties of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options
     4.2.  Structure of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options
     4.3.  Using the Q-Block1 Option
     4.4.  Using the Q-Block2 Option
     4.5.  Using the Observe Option
     4.6.  Using the Size1 and Size2 Options
     4.7.  Using the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options Together
     4.8.  Using the Q-Block2 Option with Multicast
   5.  The Use of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code
   6.  The Use of Tokens
   7.  Congestion Control for Unreliable Transports
     7.1.  Confirmable (CON)
     7.2.  Non-confirmable (NON)
   8.  Caching Considerations
   9.  HTTP Mapping Considerations
   10. Examples with Non-confirmable Messages
     10.1.  Q-Block1 Option
       10.1.1.  A Simple Example
       10.1.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits
       10.1.3.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS with Recovery
       10.1.4.  Handling Recovery if Failure Occurs
     10.2.  Q-Block2 Option
       10.2.1.  A Simple Example
       10.2.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits
       10.2.3.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS with Recovery
       10.2.4.  Handling Recovery by Setting the M Bit
     10.3.  Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options
       10.3.1.  A Simple Example
       10.3.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits
       10.3.3.  Handling Recovery
   11. Security Considerations
   12. IANA Considerations
     12.1.  CoAP Option Numbers Registry
     12.2.  Media Type Registration
     12.3.  CoAP Content-Formats Registry
   13. References
     13.1.  Normative References
     13.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages
     A.1.  Q-Block1 Option
     A.2.  Q-Block2 Option
   Appendix B.  Examples with Reliable Transports
     B.1.  Q-Block1 Option
     B.2.  Q-Block2 Option
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC 7252], although
   inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP.  The
   message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable
   delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.  CoAP supports
   two message types (Section 1.2 of [RFC 7252]): Confirmable (CON) and
   Non-confirmable (NON).  Unlike NON messages, every CON message will
   elicit an acknowledgment or a reset.

   The CoAP specification recommends that a CoAP message should fit
   within a single IP packet (i.e., avoid IP fragmentation).  To handle
   data records that cannot fit in a single IP packet, [RFC 7959]
   introduced the concept of block-wise transfers and the companion CoAP
   Block1 and Block2 options.  However, this concept is designed to work
   exclusively with Confirmable messages (Section 1 of [RFC 7959]).  Note
   that the block-wise transfer was further updated by [RFC 8323] for use
   over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets.

   The CoAP Block1 and Block2 options work well in environments where
   there are no, or minimal, packet losses.  These options operate
   synchronously, i.e., each individual block has to be requested.  A
   CoAP endpoint can only ask for (or send) the next block when the
   transfer of the previous block has completed.  The packet
   transmission rate, and hence the block transmission rate, is
   controlled by Round-Trip Times (RTTs).

   There is a requirement for blocks of data larger than a single IP
   datagram to be transmitted under network conditions where there may
   be asymmetrical transient packet loss (e.g., acknowledgment responses
   may get dropped).  An example is when a network is subject to a
   Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack and there is a need for
   DDoS mitigation agents relying upon CoAP to communicate with each
   other (e.g., [RFC 9132] [DOTS-TELEMETRY]).  As a reminder, [RFC 7959]
   recommends the use of CON responses to handle potential packet loss.
   However, such a recommendation does not work with a "flooded pipe"
   DDoS situation (e.g., [RFC 9132]).

   This document introduces the CoAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options,
   which allow block-wise transfers to work with a series of Non-
   confirmable messages instead of lock-stepping using Confirmable
   messages (Section 3).  In other words, this document provides a
   missing piece of [RFC 7959], namely the support of block-wise
   transfers using Non-confirmable messages where an entire body of data
   can be transmitted without the requirement that intermediate
   acknowledgments be received from the peer (but recovery is available
   should it be needed).

   Similar to [RFC 7959], this specification does not remove any of the
   constraints posed by the base CoAP specification [RFC 7252] it is
   strictly layered on top of.

2.  Terminology

   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
   BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Readers should be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in
   [RFC 7252], [RFC 7959], and [RFC 8132].  Particularly, the document uses
   the following key concepts:

   Token:  used to match responses to requests independently from the
      underlying messages (Section 5.3.1 of [RFC 7252]).

   ETag:  used as a resource-local identifier for differentiating
      between representations of the same resource that vary over time
      (Section 5.10.6 of [RFC 7252]).

   The terms "payload" and "body" are defined in [RFC 7959].  The term
   "payload" is thus used for the content of a single CoAP message
   (i.e., a single block being transferred), while the term "body" is
   used for the entire resource representation that is being transferred
   in a block-wise fashion.

   Request-Tag refers to an option that allows a CoAP server to match
   message fragments belonging to the same request [RFC 9175].

   MAX_PAYLOADS is the maximum number of payloads that can be
   transmitted at any one time.

   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET is the set of blocks identified by block numbers
   that, when divided by MAX_PAYLOADS, have the same numeric result.
   For example, if MAX_PAYLOADS is set to 10, a MAX_PAYLOADS_SET could
   be blocks #0 to #9, #10 to #19, etc.  Depending on the overall data
   size, there could be fewer than MAX_PAYLOADS blocks in the final
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

3.  Alternative CoAP Block-Wise Transfer Options

   This document introduces the CoAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options.
   These options are designed to work in particular with NON requests
   and responses.

   Using NON messages, faster transmissions can occur, as all the blocks
   can be transmitted serially (akin to fragmented IP packets) without
   having to wait for a response or next request from the remote CoAP
   peer.  Recovery of missing blocks is faster in that multiple missing
   blocks can be requested in a single CoAP message.  Even if there is
   asymmetrical packet loss, a body can still be sent and received by
   the peer whether the body comprises a single payload or multiple
   payloads, assuming no recovery is required.

   A CoAP endpoint can acknowledge all or a subset of the blocks.
   Concretely, the receiving CoAP endpoint either informs the sending
   CoAP endpoint of successful reception or reports on all blocks in the
   body that have not yet been received.  The sending CoAP endpoint will
   then retransmit only the blocks that have been lost in transmission.

   Note that similar transmission rate benefits can be applied to
   Confirmable messages if the value of NSTART is increased from 1
   (Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252]).  However, the use of Confirmable messages
   will not work effectively if there is asymmetrical packet loss.  Some
   examples with Confirmable messages are provided in Appendix A.

   There is little, if any, benefit of using these options with CoAP
   running over a reliable connection [RFC 8323].  In this case, there is
   no differentiation between CON and NON, as they are not used.  Some
   examples using a reliable transport are provided in Appendix B.

   The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are similar in operation to the
   CoAP Block1 and Block2 options, respectively.  They are not a
   replacement for them but have the following benefits:

   *  They can operate in environments where packet loss is highly
      asymmetrical.

   *  They enable faster transmissions of sets of blocks of data with
      fewer packet interchanges.

   *  They support faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in
      transmission.

   *  They support sending an entire body using NON messages without
      requiring that an intermediate response be received from the peer.

   The disadvantages of using the CoAP Block1 and Block2 options are as
   follows:

   *  There is a loss of lock-stepping, so payloads are not always
      received in the correct order (blocks in ascending order).

   *  Additional congestion control measures need to be put in place for
      NON messages (Section 7.2).

   *  To reduce the transmission times for CON transmissions of large
      bodies, NSTART needs to be increased from 1, but this affects
      congestion control and incurs a requirement to retune other
      parameters (Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252]).  Such tuning is out of
      scope of this document.

   *  Mixing of NON and CON during an exchange of requests/responses
      using Q-Block options is not supported.

   *  The Q-Block options do not support stateless operation/random
      access.

   *  Proxying of Q-Block options is limited to caching full
      representations.

   *  There is no multicast support.

   The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options can be used instead of the Block1
   and Block2 options when the different transmission properties are
   required.  If the new options are not supported by a peer, then
   transmissions can fall back to using the Block1 and Block2 options
   (Section 4.1).

   The deviations from the Block1 and Block2 options are specified in
   Section 4.  Pointers to the appropriate sections in [RFC 7959] are
   provided.

   The specification refers to the base CoAP methods defined in
   Section 5.8 of [RFC 7252] and the new CoAP methods, FETCH, PATCH, and
   iPATCH, which are introduced in [RFC 8132].

   The No-Response option [RFC 7967] was considered but was abandoned, as
   it does not apply to Q-Block2 responses.  A unified solution is
   defined in the document.

3.1.  CoAP Response Code (4.08) Usage

   This document adds a media type for the 4.08 (Request Entity
   Incomplete) response defining an additional message format for
   reporting on payloads using the Q-Block1 option that are not received
   by the server.

   See Section 5 for more details.

3.2.  Applicability Scope

   The block-wise transfer specified in [RFC 7959] covers the general
   case using Confirmable messages but falls short in situations where
   packet loss is highly asymmetrical or there is no need for an
   acknowledgment.  In other words, there is a need for Non-confirmable
   support.

   The mechanism specified in this document provides roughly similar
   features to the Block1/Block2 options.  It provides additional
   properties that are tailored towards the intended use case of Non-
   confirmable transmission.  Concretely, this mechanism primarily
   targets applications, such as DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS), that
   cannot use CON requests/responses because of potential packet loss
   and that support application-specific mechanisms to assess whether
   the remote peer is not overloaded and thus is able to process the
   messages sent by a CoAP endpoint (e.g., DOTS heartbeats in
   Section 4.7 of [RFC 9132]).  Other use cases are when an application
   sends data but has no need for an acknowledgment of receipt and any
   data transmission loss is not critical.

   The mechanism includes guards to prevent a CoAP agent from
   overloading the network by adopting an aggressive sending rate.
   These guards MUST be followed in addition to the existing CoAP
   congestion control, as specified in Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252].  See
   Section 7 for more details.

   Any usage outside the primary use case of Non-confirmable messages
   with block transfers should be carefully weighed against the
   potential loss of interoperability with generic CoAP applications
   (see the disadvantages listed in Section 3).  It is hoped that the
   experience gained with this mechanism can feed future extensions of
   the block-wise mechanism that will both be generally applicable and
   serve this particular use case.

   It is not recommended that these options are used in the "NoSec"
   security mode (Section 9 of [RFC 7252]), as the source endpoint needs
   to be trusted.  Using Object Security for Constrained RESTful
   Environments (OSCORE) [RFC 8613] does provide a security context and
   hence a trust of the source endpoint that prepared the inner OSCORE
   content.  However, even with OSCORE, using the NoSec mode with these
   options may still be inadequate, for reasons discussed in Section 11.

4.  The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options

4.1.  Properties of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options

   The properties of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are shown in
   Table 1.  The formatting of this table follows the one used in
   Table 4 of Section 5.10 of [RFC 7252].  The C, U, N, and R columns
   indicate the properties Critical, UnSafe, NoCacheKey, and Repeatable,
   which are defined in Section 5.4 of [RFC 7252].  Only the Critical and
   UnSafe columns are marked for the Q-Block1 option.  The Critical,
   UnSafe, and Repeatable columns are marked for the Q-Block2 option.
   As these options are UnSafe, NoCacheKey has no meaning and so is
   marked with a dash.

      +=====+===+===+===+===+==========+========+========+=========+
      | No. | C | U | N | R | Name     | Format | Length | Default |
      +=====+===+===+===+===+==========+========+========+=========+
      | 19  | x | x | - |   | Q-Block1 | uint   | 0-3    | (none)  |
      +-----+---+---+---+---+----------+--------+--------+---------+
      | 31  | x | x | - | x | Q-Block2 | uint   | 0-3    | (none)  |
      +-----+---+---+---+---+----------+--------+--------+---------+

          Table 1: CoAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Option Properties

   The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options can be present in both the request
   and response messages.  The Q-Block1 option pertains to the request
   payload, and the Q-Block2 option pertains to the response payload.
   When the Content-Format option is present together with the Q-Block1
   or Q-Block2 option, the option applies to the body, not to the
   payload (i.e., it must be the same for all payloads of the same
   body).

   The Q-Block1 option is useful with the payload-bearing (e.g., POST,
   PUT, FETCH, PATCH, and iPATCH) requests and their responses.

   The Q-Block2 option is useful, for example, with GET, POST, PUT,
   FETCH, PATCH, and iPATCH requests and their payload-bearing responses
   (response codes 2.01, 2.02, 2.04, and 2.05) (Section 5.5 of
   [RFC 7252]).

   A CoAP endpoint (or proxy) MUST support either both or neither of the
   Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options.

   If the Q-Block1 option is present in a request or the Q-Block2 option
   is returned in a response, this indicates a block-wise transfer and
   describes how this specific block-wise payload forms part of the
   entire body being transferred.  If it is present in the opposite
   direction, it provides additional control on how that payload will be
   formed or was processed.

   To indicate support for Q-Block2 responses, the CoAP client MUST
   include the Q-Block2 option in a GET or similar request (e.g.,
   FETCH), the Q-Block2 option in a PUT or similar request (e.g., POST),
   or the Q-Block1 option in a PUT or similar request so that the server
   knows that the client supports this Q-Block functionality should it
   need to send back a body that spans multiple payloads.  Otherwise,
   the server would use the Block2 option (if supported) to send back a
   message body that is too large to fit into a single IP packet
   [RFC 7959].

   How a client decides whether it needs to include a Q-Block1 or
   Q-Block2 option can be driven by a local configuration parameter,
   triggered by an application (e.g., DOTS), etc.  Such considerations
   are out of the scope of this document.

   Implementation of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options is intended to be
   optional.  However, when a Q-Block1 or Q-Block2 option is present in
   a CoAP message, it MUST be processed (or the message rejected).
   Therefore, the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are identified as
   critical options.

   With CoAP over UDP, the way a request message is rejected for
   critical options depends on the message type.  A Confirmable message
   with an unrecognized critical option is rejected with a 4.02 (Bad
   Option) response (Section 5.4.1 of [RFC 7252]).  A Non-confirmable
   message with an unrecognized critical option is either rejected with
   a Reset message or just silently ignored (Sections 5.4.1 and 4.3 of
   [RFC 7252]).  To reliably get a rejection message, it is therefore
   REQUIRED that clients use a Confirmable message for determining
   support for the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options.  This Confirmable
   message can be sent under the base CoAP congestion control setup
   specified in Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252] (that is, NSTART does not need
   to be increased (Section 7.1)).

   The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are unsafe to forward.  That is, a
   CoAP proxy that does not understand the Q-Block1 (or Q-Block2) option
   must reject the request or response that uses either option (see
   Section 5.7.1 of [RFC 7252]).

   The Q-Block2 option is repeatable when requesting retransmission of
   missing blocks but not otherwise.  Except for that case, any request
   carrying multiple Q-Block1 (or Q-Block2) options MUST be handled
   following the procedure specified in Section 5.4.5 of [RFC 7252].

   The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options, like the Block1 and Block2
   options, are of both class E and class U for OSCORE processing
   (Table 2).  The Q-Block1 (or Q-Block2) option MAY be an Inner or
   Outer option (Section 4.1 of [RFC 8613]).  The Inner and Outer values
   are therefore independent of each other.  The Inner option is
   encrypted and integrity protected between clients and servers and
   provides message body identification in case of end-to-end
   fragmentation of requests.  The Outer option is visible to proxies
   and labels message bodies in case of hop-by-hop fragmentation of
   requests.

                       +========+==========+===+===+
                       | Number | Name     | E | U |
                       +========+==========+===+===+
                       | 19     | Q-Block1 | x | x |
                       +--------+----------+---+---+
                       | 31     | Q-Block2 | x | x |
                       +--------+----------+---+---+

                              Table 2: OSCORE
                             Protection of the
                           Q-Block1 and Q-Block2
                                  Options

   Note that, if the Q-Block1 or Q-Block2 options are included in a
   packet as Inner options, the Block1 or Block2 options MUST NOT be
   included as Inner options.  Similarly, there MUST NOT be a mix of
   Q-Block and Block options for the Outer options.  Messages that do
   not adhere to this behavior MUST be rejected with a 4.02 (Bad
   Option).  The Q-Block and Block options can be mixed across Inner and
   Outer options, as these are handled independently of each other.  For
   clarity, if OSCORE is not being used, there MUST NOT be a mix of
   Q-Block and Block options in the same packet.

4.2.  Structure of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options

   The structure of the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options follows the
   structure defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC 7959].

   There is no default value for the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options.  The
   absence of one of these options is equivalent to an option value of 0
   with respect to the value of block number (NUM) and more bit (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 is
   set to 0; M is unset).  However, in contrast to the explicit value 0,
   which would indicate a size of the block (SZX) of 0, and thus a size
   value of 16 bytes, there is no specific 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;
   therefore, this is semantically different from the absence of the
   option.)

4.3.  Using the Q-Block1 Option

   The Q-Block1 option is used when the client wants to send a large
   amount of data to the server using the POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH, or
   iPATCH methods where the data and headers do not fit into a single
   packet.

   When the Q-Block1 option is used, the client MUST include a Request-
   Tag option [RFC 9175].  The Request-Tag value MUST be the same for all
   of the requests for the body of data that is being transferred.  The
   Request-Tag is opaque, but the client MUST ensure that it is unique
   for every different body of transmitted data.

      Implementation Note: It is suggested that the client treats the
      Request-Tag as an unsigned integer of 8 bytes in length.  An
      implementation may want to consider limiting this to 4 bytes to
      reduce packet overhead size.  The initial Request-Tag value should
      be randomly generated and then subsequently incremented by the
      client whenever a new body of data is being transmitted between
      peers.

   Section 4.6 discusses the use of the Size1 option.

   For Confirmable transmission, the server continues to acknowledge
   each packet, but a response is not required (whether separate or
   piggybacked) until successful receipt of the body by the server.  For
   Non-confirmable transmission, no response is required until either
   the successful receipt of the body by the server or a timer expires
   with some of the payloads having not yet arrived.  In the latter
   case, a "retransmit missing payloads" response is needed.  For
   reliable transports (e.g., [RFC 8323]), a response is not required
   until successful receipt of the body by the server.

   Each individual message that carries a block of the body is treated
   as a new request (Section 6).

   The client MUST send the payloads in order of increasing block
   number, starting from zero, until the body is complete (subject to
   any congestion control (Section 7)).  In addition, any missing
   payloads requested by the server must be separately transmitted with
   increasing block numbers.

   The following response codes are used:

   2.01 (Created)
      This response code indicates successful receipt of the entire body
      and that the resource was created.  The token to use MUST be one
      of the tokens that were received in a request for this block-wise
      exchange.  However, it is desirable to provide the one used in the
      last received request, since that will aid any troubleshooting.
      The client should then release all of the tokens used for this
      body.  Note that the last received payload might not be the one
      with the highest block number.

   2.02 (Deleted)
      This response code indicates successful receipt of the entire body
      and that the resource was deleted when using POST (Section 5.8.2
      of [RFC 7252]).  The token to use MUST be one of the tokens that
      were received in a request for this block-wise exchange.  However,
      it is desirable to provide the one used in the last received
      request.  The client should then release all of the tokens used
      for this body.

   2.04 (Changed)
      This response code indicates successful receipt of the entire body
      and that the resource was updated.  The token to use MUST be one
      of the tokens that were received in a request for this block-wise
      exchange.  However, it is desirable to provide the one used in the
      last received request.  The client should then release all of the
      tokens used for this body.

   2.05 (Content)
      This response code indicates successful receipt of the entire
      FETCH request body (Section 2 of [RFC 8132]) and that the
      appropriate representation of the resource is being returned.  The
      token to use MUST be one of the tokens that were received in a
      request for this block-wise exchange.  However, it is desirable to
      provide the one used in the last received request.

      If the FETCH request includes the Observe option, then the server
      MUST use the same token as used for the 2.05 (Content) response
      for returning any triggered Observe responses so that the client
      can match them up.

      The client should then release all of the tokens used for this
      body apart from the one used for tracking an observed resource.

   2.31 (Continue)
      This response code can be used to indicate that all of the blocks
      up to and including the Q-Block1 option block NUM (all having the
      M bit set) have been successfully received.  The token to use MUST
      be one of the tokens that were received in a request for this
      latest MAX_PAYLOADS_SET block-wise exchange.  However, it is
      desirable to provide the one used in the last received request.

      The client should then release all of the tokens used for this
      MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

      A response using this response code MUST NOT be generated for
      every received Q-Block1 option request.  It SHOULD only be
      generated when all the payload requests are Non-confirmable and a
      MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received by the server.  More details
      about the motivations for this optimization are discussed in
      Section 7.2.

      This response code SHOULD NOT be generated for CON, as this may
      cause duplicated payloads to unnecessarily be sent.

   4.00 (Bad Request)
      This response code MUST be returned if the request does not
      include a Request-Tag option or a Size1 option but does include a
      Q-Block1 option.

   4.02 (Bad Option)
      This response code MUST be returned for a Confirmable request if
      the server does not support the Q-Block options.  Note that a
      Reset message may be sent in case of a Non-confirmable request.

   4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete)
      As a reminder, this response code returned without content type
      "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" (Section 12.3) is handled as
      in Section 2.9.2 of [RFC 7959].

      This response code returned with content type "application/
      missing-blocks+cbor-seq" indicates that some of the payloads are
      missing and need to be resent.  The client then retransmits the
      individual missing payloads using the same Request-Tag, Size1, and
      Q-Block1 options to specify the same NUM, SZX, and M bit values as
      those sent initially in the original (but not received) packets.

      The Request-Tag value to use is determined by taking the token in
      the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response, locating the
      matching client request, and then using its Request-Tag.

      The token to use in the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response
      MUST be one of the tokens that were received in a request for this
      block-wise body exchange.  However, it is desirable to provide the
      one used in the last received request.  See Section 5 for further
      information.

      If the server has not received all the blocks of a body, but one
      or more NON payloads have been received, it SHOULD wait for
      NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (Section 7.2) before sending a 4.08 (Request
      Entity Incomplete) response.

   4.13 (Request Entity Too Large)
      This response code can be returned under conditions similar to
      those discussed in Section 2.9.3 of [RFC 7959].

      This response code can be returned if there is insufficient space
      to create a response PDU with a block size of 16 bytes (SZX = 0)
      to send back all the response options as appropriate.  In this
      case, the Size1 option is not included in the response.

   Further considerations related to the transmission timings of the
   4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) and 2.31 (Continue) response codes
   are discussed in Section 7.2.

   If a server receives payloads with different Request-Tags for the
   same resource, it should continue to process all the bodies, as it
   has no way of determining which is the latest version or which body,
   if any, the client is terminating the transmission for.

   If the client elects to stop the transmission of a complete body,
   then absent any local policy, the client MUST "forget" all tracked
   tokens associated with the body's Request-Tag so that a Reset message
   is generated for the invalid token in the 4.08 (Request Entity
   Incomplete) response.  On receipt of the Reset message, the server
   SHOULD delete the partial body.

   If the server receives a duplicate block with the same Request-Tag,
   it MUST ignore the payload of the packet but MUST still respond as if
   the block was received for the first time.

   A server SHOULD maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT (Section 7.2).

4.4.  Using the Q-Block2 Option

   In a request for any block number, an unset M bit indicates the
   request is just for that block.  If the M bit is set, this has
   different meanings based on the NUM value:

   NUM is zero:  This is a request for the entire body.

   'NUM modulo MAX_PAYLOADS' is zero, while NUM is not zero:  This is
      used to confirm that the current MAX_PAYLOADS_SET (the latest
      block having block number NUM-1) has been successfully received
      and that, upon receipt of this request, the server can continue to
      send the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET (the first block having block
      number NUM).  This is the 'Continue' Q-Block-2 and conceptually
      has the same usage (i.e., continue sending the next set of data)
      as the use of 2.31 (Continue) for Q-Block1.

   Any other value of NUM:  This is a request for that block and for all
      of the remaining blocks in the current MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

   If the request includes multiple Q-Block2 options and these options
   overlap (e.g., combination of M being set (this and later blocks) and
   unset (this individual block)), resulting in an individual block
   being requested multiple times, the server MUST only send back one
   instance of that block.  This behavior is meant to prevent
   amplification attacks.

   The payloads sent back from the server as a response MUST all have
   the same ETag (Section 5.10.6 of [RFC 7252]) for the same body.  The
   server MUST NOT use the same ETag value for different representations
   of a resource.

   The ETag is opaque, but the server MUST ensure that it is unique for
   every different body of transmitted data.

      Implementation Note: It is suggested that the server treats the
      ETag as an unsigned integer of 8 bytes in length.  An
      implementation may want to consider limiting this to 4 bytes to
      reduce packet overhead size.  The initial ETag value should be
      randomly generated and then subsequently incremented by the server
      whenever a new body of data is being transmitted between peers.

   Section 4.6 discusses the use of the Size2 option.

   The client may elect to request any detected missing blocks or just
   ignore the partial body.  This decision is implementation specific.

   For NON payloads, the client SHOULD wait for NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT
   (Section 7.2) after the last received payload before requesting
   retransmission of any missing blocks.  Retransmission is requested by
   issuing a GET, POST, PUT, FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH request that
   contains one or more Q-Block2 options that define the missing
   block(s).  Generally, the M bit on the Q-Block2 option(s) SHOULD be
   unset, although the M bit MAY be set to request this and later blocks
   from this MAX_PAYLOADS_SET; see Section 10.2.4 for an example of this
   in operation.  Further considerations related to the transmission
   timing for missing requests are discussed in Section 7.2.

   The missing block numbers requested by the client MUST have an
   increasing block number in each additional Q-Block2 option with no
   duplicates.  The server SHOULD respond with a 4.00 (Bad Request) to
   requests not adhering to this behavior.  Note that the ordering
   constraint is meant to force the client to check for duplicates and
   remove them.  This also helps with troubleshooting.

   If the client receives a duplicate block with the same ETag, it MUST
   silently ignore the payload.

   A client SHOULD maintain a partial body (missing payloads) for
   NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT (Section 7.2) or as defined by the Max-Age option
   (or its default of 60 seconds (Section 5.6.1 of [RFC 7252])),
   whichever is less.  On release of the partial body, the client should
   then release all of the tokens used for this body apart from the
   token that is used to track a resource that is being observed.

   The ETag option should not be used in the request for missing blocks,
   as the server could respond with a 2.03 (Valid) response with no
   payload.  It can be used in the request if the client wants to check
   the freshness of the locally cached body response.

   The server SHOULD maintain a cached copy of the body when using the
   Q-Block2 option to facilitate retransmission of any missing payloads.

   If the server detects partway through a body transfer that the
   resource data has changed and the server is not maintaining a cached
   copy of the old data, then the transmission is terminated.  Any
   subsequent missing block requests MUST be responded to using the
   latest ETag and Size2 option values with the updated data.

   If the server responds during a body update with a different ETag
   option value (as the resource representation has changed), then the
   client should treat the partial body with the old ETag as no longer
   being fresh.  The client may then request all of the new data by
   specifying Q-Block2 with block number '0' and the M bit set.

   If the server transmits a new body of data (e.g., a triggered Observe
   notification) with a new ETag to the same client as an additional
   response, the client should remove any partially received body held
   for a previous ETag for that resource, as it is unlikely the missing
   blocks can be retrieved.

   If there is insufficient space to create a response PDU with a block
   size of 16 bytes (SZX = 0) to send back all the response options as
   appropriate, a 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) is returned without
   the Size1 option.

   For Confirmable traffic, the server typically acknowledges the
   initial request using an Acknowledgment (ACK) with a piggybacked
   payload and then sends the subsequent payloads of the
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET as CON responses.  These CON responses are
   individually ACKed by the client.  The server will detect failure to
   send a packet and SHOULD terminate the body transfer, but the client
   can issue, after a MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN delay, a separate GET, POST,
   PUT, FETCH, PATCH, or iPATCH for any missing blocks as needed.

4.5.  Using the Observe Option

   For a request that uses Q-Block1, the Observe value [RFC 7641] MUST be
   the same for all the payloads of the same body.  This includes any
   missing payloads that are retransmitted.

   For a response that uses Q-Block2, the Observe value MUST be the same
   for all the payloads of the same body.  This is different from Block2
   usage where the Observe value is only present in the first block
   (Section 3.4 of [RFC 7959]).  This includes payloads transmitted
   following receipt of the 'Continue' Q-Block2 option (Section 4.4) by
   the server.  If a missing payload is requested by a client, then both
   the request and response MUST NOT include the Observe option.

4.6.  Using the Size1 and Size2 Options

   Section 4 of [RFC 7959] 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.

   For the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options, the Size1 or Size2 option
   values MUST exactly represent the size of the data on the body so
   that any missing data can easily be determined.

   The Size1 option MUST be used with the Q-Block1 option when used in a
   request and MUST be present in all payloads of the request,
   preserving the same value.  The Size2 option MUST be used with the
   Q-Block2 option when used in a response and MUST be present in all
   payloads of the response, preserving the same value.

4.7.  Using the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options Together

   The behavior is similar to the one defined in Section 3.3 of
   [RFC 7959] with Q-Block1 substituted for Block1 and Q-Block2
   substituted for Block2.

4.8.  Using the Q-Block2 Option with Multicast

   Servers MUST ignore multicast requests that contain the Q-Block2
   option.  As a reminder, the Block2 option can be used as stated in
   Section 2.8 of [RFC 7959].

5.  The Use of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) Response Code

   The 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response code has a new content
   type "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" used to indicate that the
   server has not received all of the blocks of the request body that it
   needs to proceed.  Such messages must not be treated by the client as
   a fatal error.

   Likely causes are the client has not sent all blocks, some blocks
   were dropped during transmission, or the client sent them a long
   enough time ago that the server has already discarded them.

   The new data payload of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response
   with content type "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" is encoded as
   a Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequence [RFC 8742].  It
   comprises one or more missing block numbers encoded as CBOR unsigned
   integers [RFC 8949].  The missing block numbers MUST be unique in each
   4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response when created by the server;
   the client MUST ignore any duplicates in the same 4.08 (Request
   Entity Incomplete) response.

   The Content-Format option (Section 5.10.3 of [RFC 7252]) MUST be used
   in the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response.  It MUST be set to
   "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" (Section 12.3).

   The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC 8610] (and see
   Section 4.1 of [RFC 8742]) for the data describing these missing
   blocks is as follows:

   ; This defines an array, the elements of which are to be used
   ; in a CBOR Sequence:
   payload = [+ missing-block-number]
   ; A unique block number not received:
   missing-block-number = uint

             Figure 1: Structure of the Missing Blocks Payload

   This CDDL syntax MUST be followed.

   It is desirable that the token to use for the response is the token
   that was used in the last block number received so far with the same
   Request-Tag value.  Note that the use of any received token with the
   same Request-Tag would be acceptable, but providing the one used in
   the last received payload will aid any troubleshooting.  The client
   will use the token to determine what was the previously sent request
   to obtain the Request-Tag value that was used.

   If the size of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response packet
   is larger than that defined by Section 4.6 of [RFC 7252], then the
   number of reported missing blocks MUST be limited so that the
   response can fit into a single packet.  If this is the case, then the
   server can send subsequent 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) responses
   containing those additional missing blocks on receipt of a new
   request providing a missing payload with the same Request-Tag.

   The missing blocks MUST be reported in ascending order without any
   duplicates.  The client SHOULD silently drop 4.08 (Request Entity
   Incomplete) responses not adhering to this behavior.

      Implementation Note: Consider limiting the number of missing
      payloads to MAX_PAYLOADS to minimize the need for congestion
      control.  The CBOR Sequence does not include any array wrapper.

   A 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response with content type
   "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" SHOULD NOT be used when using
   Confirmable requests or a reliable connection [RFC 8323], as the
   client will be able to determine that there is a transmission failure
   of a particular payload and hence that the server is missing that
   payload.

6.  The Use of Tokens

   Each new request generally uses a new Token (and sometimes must; see
   Section 4 of [RFC 9175]).  Additional responses to a request all use
   the token of the request they respond to.

      Implementation Note: By using 8-byte tokens, it is possible to
      easily minimize the number of tokens that have to be tracked by
      clients, by keeping the bottom 32 bits the same for the same body
      and the upper 32 bits containing the current body's request number
      (incrementing every request, including every retransmit).  This
      alleviates the client's need to keep all the per-request state,
      e.g., per Section 3 of [RFC 8974].  However, if using NoSec,
      Section 5.2 of [RFC 8974] needs to be considered for security
      implications.

7.  Congestion Control for Unreliable Transports

   The transmission of all the blocks of a single body over an
   unreliable transport MUST either all be Confirmable or all be Non-
   confirmable.  This is meant to simplify the congestion control
   procedure.

   As a reminder, there is no need for CoAP-specific congestion control
   for reliable transports [RFC 8323].

7.1.  Confirmable (CON)

   Congestion control for CON requests and responses is specified in
   Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252].  In order to benefit from faster
   transmission rates, NSTART will need to be increased from 1.
   However, the other CON congestion control parameters will need to be
   tuned to cover this change.  This tuning is not specified in this
   document, given that the applicability scope of the current
   specification assumes that all requests and responses using Q-Block1
   and Q-Block2 will be Non-confirmable (Section 3.2) apart from the
   initial Q-Block functionality negotiation.

   Following the failure to transmit a packet due to packet loss after
   MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN time (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC 7252]), it is
   implementation specific as to whether there should be any further
   requests for missing data.

7.2.  Non-confirmable (NON)

   This document introduces the new parameters MAX_PAYLOADS,
   NON_TIMEOUT, NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM, NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT,
   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, NON_PROBING_WAIT, and NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT
   primarily for use with NON (Table 3).

      Note: Randomness may naturally be provided based on the traffic
      profile, how PROBING_RATE is computed (as this is an average), and
      when the peer responds.  Randomness is explicitly added for some
      of the congestion control parameters to handle situations where
      everything is in sync when retrying.

   MAX_PAYLOADS should be configurable with a default value of 10.  Both
   CoAP endpoints MUST have the same value (otherwise, there will be
   transmission delays in one direction), and the value MAY be
   negotiated between the endpoints to a common value by using a higher-
   level protocol (out of scope of this document).  This is the maximum
   number of payloads that can be transmitted at any one time.

      Note: The default value of 10 is chosen for reasons similar to
      those discussed in Section 5 of [RFC 6928], especially given the
      target application discussed in Section 3.2.

   NON_TIMEOUT is used to compute the delay between sending
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET for the same body.  By default, NON_TIMEOUT has the
   same value as ACK_TIMEOUT (Section 4.8 of [RFC 7252]).

   NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM is the initial actual delay between sending the
   first two MAX_PAYLOADS_SETs of the same body.  The same delay is then
   used between the subsequent MAX_PAYLOADS_SETs.  It is a random
   duration (not an integral number of seconds) between NON_TIMEOUT and
   (NON_TIMEOUT * ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR).  ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR is set to 1.5,
   as discussed in Section 4.8 of [RFC 7252].

   NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT is the initial time to wait for a missing payload
   before requesting retransmission for the first time.  Every time the
   missing payload is re-requested, the Time-to-Wait value doubles.  The
   time to wait is calculated as:

      Time-to-Wait = NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT * (2 ** (Re-Request-Count - 1))

   NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT has a default value of twice NON_TIMEOUT.
   NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT MUST always be greater than NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM by
   at least one second so that the sender of the payloads has the
   opportunity to start sending the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET before the
   receiver times out.

   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT is the maximum number of times a request for the
   retransmission of missing payloads can occur without a response from
   the remote peer.  After this occurs, the local endpoint SHOULD
   consider the body stale, remove any body, and release the tokens and
   Request-Tag on the client (or the ETag on the server).  By default,
   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT has the same value as MAX_RETRANSMIT (Section 4.8
   of [RFC 7252]).

   NON_PROBING_WAIT is used to limit the potential wait needed when
   using PROBING_RATE.  By default, NON_PROBING_WAIT is computed in a
   way similar to EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC 7252]) but
   with ACK_TIMEOUT, MAX_RETRANSMIT, and PROCESSING_DELAY substituted
   with NON_TIMEOUT, NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, and NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM,
   respectively:

      NON_PROBING_WAIT = NON_TIMEOUT * ((2 ** NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT) - 1) *
      ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR + (2 * MAX_LATENCY) + NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM

   NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is used for expiring partially received bodies.
   By default, NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is computed in the same way as
   EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC 7252]) but with ACK_TIMEOUT
   and MAX_RETRANSMIT substituted with NON_TIMEOUT and
   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, respectively:

      NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT = NON_TIMEOUT * ((2 ** NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT) -
      1) * ACK_RANDOM_FACTOR + (2 * MAX_LATENCY) + NON_TIMEOUT

                +=====================+===================+
                | Parameter Name      | Default Value     |
                +=====================+===================+
                | MAX_PAYLOADS        | 10                |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT  | 4                 |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_TIMEOUT         | 2 s               |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM  | between 2-3 s     |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT | 4 s               |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_PROBING_WAIT    | between 247-248 s |
                +---------------------+-------------------+
                | NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT | 247 s             |
                +---------------------+-------------------+

                   Table 3: Congestion Control Parameters

   The PROBING_RATE parameter in CoAP indicates the average data rate
   that must not be exceeded by a CoAP endpoint in sending to a peer
   endpoint that does not respond.  A single body will be subjected to
   PROBING_RATE (Section 4.7 of [RFC 7252]), not the individual packets.
   If the wait time between sending bodies that are not being responded
   to based on PROBING_RATE exceeds NON_PROBING_WAIT, then the wait time
   is limited to NON_PROBING_WAIT.

      |  Note: For the particular DOTS application, PROBING_RATE and
      |  other transmission parameters are negotiated between peers.
      |  Even when not negotiated, the DOTS application uses customized
      |  defaults, as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC 9132].  Note
      |  that MAX_PAYLOADS, NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, NON_TIMEOUT,
      |  NON_PROBING_WAIT, and NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT can be negotiated
      |  between DOTS peers, e.g., as per [DOTS-QUICK-BLOCKS].  When
      |  explicit values are configured for NON_PROBING_WAIT and
      |  NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT, these values are used without applying any
      |  jitter.

   Each NON 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response is subject to
   PROBING_RATE.

   Each NON GET or FETCH request using a Q-Block2 option is subject to
   PROBING_RATE.

   As the sending of many payloads of a single body may itself cause
   congestion, after transmission of every MAX_PAYLOADS_SET of a single
   body, a delay of NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM MUST be introduced before sending
   the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, unless a 'Continue' is received from the
   peer for the current MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, in which case the next
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET MAY start transmission immediately.

      Note: Assuming 1500-byte packets and the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET having
      10 payloads, this corresponds to 1500 * 10 * 8 = 120 kbits.  With
      a delay of 2 seconds between MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, this indicates an
      average speed requirement of 60 kbps for a single body should
      there be no responses.  This transmission rate is further reduced
      by being subject to PROBING_RATE.

   The sending of a set of missing blocks of a body is restricted to
   those in a MAX_PAYLOADS_SET at a time.  In other words, a
   NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM delay is still observed between each
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

   For the Q-Block1 option, if the server responds with a 2.31
   (Continue) response code for the latest payload sent, then the client
   can continue to send the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET without any further
   delay.  If the server responds with a 4.08 (Request Entity
   Incomplete) response code, then the missing payloads SHOULD be
   retransmitted before going into another NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM delay
   prior to sending the next set of payloads.

   For the server receiving NON Q-Block1 requests, it SHOULD send back a
   2.31 (Continue) response code on receipt of all of the
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET to prevent the client unnecessarily delaying the
   transfer of remaining blocks.  If not all of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET
   were received, the server SHOULD delay for NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT
   (exponentially scaled based on the repeat request count for a
   payload) before sending the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) response
   code for the missing payload(s).  If all of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET were
   received and a 2.31 (Continue) response code had been sent, but no
   more payloads were received for NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (exponentially
   scaled), the server SHOULD send a 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete)
   response detailing the missing payloads after the block number that
   was indicated in the sent 2.31 (Continue) response code.  If the
   repeat response count of the 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) exceeds
   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, the server SHOULD discard the partial body and
   stop requesting the missing payloads.

   It is likely that the client will start transmitting the next
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET before the server times out on waiting for the last
   block of the previous MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.  On receipt of a payload from
   the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, the server SHOULD send a 4.08 (Request
   Entity Incomplete) response code indicating any missing payloads from
   any previous MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.  Upon receipt of the 4.08 (Request
   Entity Incomplete) response code, the client SHOULD send the missing
   payloads before continuing to send the remainder of the
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET and then go into another NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM delay
   prior to sending the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

   For the client receiving NON Q-Block2 responses, it SHOULD send a
   'Continue' Q-Block2 request (Section 4.4) for the next
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET on receipt of all of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET to prevent
   the server unnecessarily delaying the transfer of remaining blocks.
   Otherwise, the client SHOULD delay for NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT
   (exponentially scaled based on the repeat request count for a
   payload) before sending the request for the missing payload(s).  If
   the repeat request count for a missing payload exceeds
   NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT, the client SHOULD discard the partial body and
   stop requesting the missing payloads.

   The server SHOULD recognize the 'Continue' Q-Block2 request per the
   definition in Section 4.4 and just continue the transmission of the
   body (including the Observe option, if appropriate for an unsolicited
   response) rather than treat 'Continue' as a request for the remaining
   missing blocks.

   It is likely that the server will start transmitting the next
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET before the client times out on waiting for the last
   block of the previous MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.  Upon receipt of a payload
   from the new MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, the client SHOULD send a request
   indicating any missing payloads from any previous MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.
   Upon receipt of such a request, the server SHOULD send the missing
   payloads before continuing to send the remainder of the
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET and then go into another NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM delay
   prior to sending the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET.

   The client does not need to acknowledge the receipt of the entire
   body.

      Note: If there is asymmetric traffic loss causing responses to
      never get received, a delay of NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM after every
      transmission of MAX_PAYLOADS_SET will be observed.  The endpoint
      receiving the body is still likely to receive the entire body.

8.  Caching Considerations

   Caching block-based information is not straightforward in a proxy.
   For the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options, for simplicity, it is expected
   that the proxy will reassemble the body (using any appropriate
   recovery options for packet loss) before passing the body onward to
   the appropriate CoAP endpoint.  This does not preclude an
   implementation doing a more complex per-payload caching, but how to
   do this is out of the scope of this document.  The onward
   transmission of the body does not require the use of the Q-Block1 or
   Q-Block2 options, as these options may not be supported in that link.
   This means that the proxy must fully support the Q-Block1 and
   Q-Block2 options.

   How the body is cached in the CoAP client (for Q-Block1
   transmissions) or the CoAP server (for Q-Block2 transmissions) is
   implementation specific.

   As the entire body is being cached in the proxy, the Q-Block1 and
   Q-Block2 options are removed as part of the block assembly and thus
   do not reach the cache.

   For Q-Block2 responses, the ETag option value is associated with the
   data (and transmitted onward to the CoAP client) but is not part of
   the cache key.

   For requests with the Q-Block1 option, the Request-Tag option is
   associated with building the body from successive payloads but is not
   part of the cache key.  For the onward transmission of the body using
   CoAP, a new Request-Tag SHOULD be generated and used.  Ideally, this
   new Request-Tag should replace the Request-Tag used by the client.

   It is possible that two or more CoAP clients are concurrently
   updating the same resource through a common proxy to the same CoAP
   server using the Q-Block1 (or Block1) option.  If this is the case,
   the first client to complete building the body causes that body to
   start transmitting to the CoAP server with an appropriate Request-Tag
   value.  When the next client completes building the body, any
   existing partial body transmission to the CoAP server is terminated,
   and the transmission of the new body representation starts with a new
   Request-Tag value.  Note that it cannot be assumed that the proxy
   will always receive a complete body from a client.

   A proxy that supports the Q-Block2 option MUST be prepared to receive
   a GET or similar request indicating one or more missing blocks.  From
   its cache, the proxy will serve the missing blocks that are available
   in its cache in the same way a server would send all the appropriate
   Q-Block2 responses.  If a body matching the cache key is not
   available in the cache, the proxy MUST request the entire body from
   the CoAP server using the information in the cache key.

   How long a CoAP endpoint (or proxy) keeps the body in its cache is
   implementation specific (e.g., it may be based on Max-Age).

9.  HTTP Mapping Considerations

   As a reminder, the basic normative requirements on HTTP/CoAP mappings
   are defined in Section 10 of [RFC 7252].  The implementation
   guidelines for HTTP/CoAP mappings are elaborated in [RFC 8075].

   The rules defined in Section 5 of [RFC 7959] are to be followed.

10.  Examples with Non-confirmable Messages

   This section provides some sample flows to illustrate the use of the
   Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options with NON.  Examples with CON are
   provided in Appendix A.

   The examples in the following subsections assume MAX_PAYLOADS is set
   to 10 and NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT is set to 4.

   The list below contains the conventions that are used in the figures
   in the following subsections.

   T:     Token value

   O:     Observe option value

   M:     Message ID

   RT:    Request-Tag

   ET:    ETag

   QB1:   Q-Block1 option values NUM/More/Size

   QB2:   Q-Block2 option values NUM/More/Size

   Size:  Actual block size encoded in SZX

   \:     Trimming long lines

   [[]]:  Comments

   -->X:  Message loss (request)

   X<--:  Message loss (response)

   ...:   Passage of time

   Payload N:  Corresponds to the CoAP message that conveys a block
          number (N-1) of a given block-wise exchange.

10.1.  Q-Block1 Option

10.1.1.  A Simple Example

   Figure 2 depicts an example of a NON PUT request conveying the
   Q-Block1 option.  All the blocks are received by the server.

    CoAP        CoAP
   Client      Server
     |          |
     +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x81 T:0xc0 RT=9 QB1:0/1/1024
     +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x82 T:0xc1 RT=9 QB1:1/1/1024
     +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x83 T:0xc2 RT=9 QB1:2/1/1024
     +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x84 T:0xc3 RT=9 QB1:3/0/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0xf1 T:0xc3
     |   ...    |

        Figure 2: Example of a NON Request with the Q-Block1 option
                               (without Loss)

10.1.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits

   Figure 3 depicts an example of a NON PUT request conveying the
   Q-Block1 option.  The number of payloads exceeds MAX_PAYLOADS.  All
   the blocks are received by the server.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf1 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf2 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x0a T:0xfa RT=10 QB1:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET receipt acknowledged by server]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.31 M:0x81 T:0xfa
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x0b T:0xfb RT=10 QB1:10/0/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0x82 T:0xfb
      |   ...    |

     Figure 3: Example of a MAX_PAYLOADS NON Request with the Q-Block1
                           Option (without Loss)

10.1.3.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS with Recovery

   Consider now a scenario where a new body of data is to be sent by the
   client, but some blocks are dropped in transmission, as illustrated
   in Figure 4.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x11 T:0xe1 RT=11 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x12 T:0xe2 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| [[Payloads 3 - 8 not detailed]]
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x19 T:0xe9 RT=11 QB1:8/1/1024
      +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x1a T:0xea RT=11 QB1:9/1/1024
      [[Some of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client starts sending next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET]]
      +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x1b T:0xeb RT=11 QB1:10/1/1024
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x1c T:0xec RT=11 QB1:11/1/1024
      |          |

     Figure 4: Example of a MAX_PAYLOADS NON Request with the Q-Block1
                             Option (with Loss)

   On seeing a payload from the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET, the server
   realizes that some blocks are missing from the previous
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET and asks for the missing blocks in one go
   (Figure 5).  It does so by indicating which blocks from the previous
   MAX_PAYLOADS_SET have not been received in the data portion of the
   response (Section 5).  The token used in the response should be the
   token that was used in the last received payload.  The client can
   then derive the Request-Tag by matching the token with the sent
   request.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x91 T:0xec [Missing 1,9]
      |     [[Client responds with missing payloads]]
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x1d T:0xed RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x1e T:0xee RT=11 QB1:9/1/1024
      |     [[Client continues sending next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET]]
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x1f T:0xef RT=11 QB1:12/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[The server realizes a block is still missing and asks
      |        for the missing one]]
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x92 T:0xef [Missing 10]
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x20 T:0xf0 RT=11 QB1:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.04 M:0x93 T:0xf0
      |   ...    |

        Figure 5: Example of a NON Request with the Q-Block1 Option
                              (Block Recovery)

10.1.4.  Handling Recovery if Failure Occurs

   Figure 6 depicts an example of a NON PUT request conveying the
   Q-Block1 option where recovery takes place but eventually fails.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x91 T:0xd0 RT=12 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--->X     | NON PUT /path M:0x92 T:0xd1 RT=12 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| NON PUT /path M:0x93 T:0xd2 RT=12 QB1:2/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[The server realizes a block is missing and asks
      |        for the missing one.  Retry #1]]
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x01 T:0xd2 [Missing 1]
      |   ...    |
   [[2 * NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[The server realizes a block is still missing and asks
      |        for the missing one.  Retry #2]]
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x02 T:0xd2 [Missing 1]
      |   ...    |
   [[4 * NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[The server realizes a block is still missing and asks
      |        for the missing one.  Retry #3]]
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x03 T:0xd2 [Missing 1]
      |   ...    |
   [[8 * NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[The server realizes a block is still missing and asks
      |        for the missing one.  Retry #4]]
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0x04 T:0xd2 [Missing 1]
      |   ...    |
   [[16 * NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT exceeded.  Server stops requesting
      |       the missing blocks and releases partial body]]
      |   ...    |

     Figure 6: Example of a NON Request with the Q-Block1 Option (with
                             Eventual Failure)

10.2.  Q-Block2 Option

   These examples include the Observe option to demonstrate how that
   option is used.  Note that the Observe option is not required for
   Q-Block2.

10.2.1.  A Simple Example

   Figure 7 illustrates an example of the Q-Block2 option.  The client
   sends a NON GET carrying the Observe and Q-Block2 options.  The
   Q-Block2 option indicates a block size hint (1024 bytes).  The server
   replies to this request using four (4) blocks that are transmitted to
   the client without any loss.  Each of these blocks carries a Q-Block2
   option.  The same process is repeated when an Observe is triggered,
   but no loss is experienced by any of the notification blocks.

    CoAP        CoAP
   Client      Server
     |          |
     +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xc0 O:0 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf1 T:0xc0 O:1220 ET=19 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf2 T:0xc0 O:1220 ET=19 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf3 T:0xc0 O:1220 ET=19 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf4 T:0xc0 O:1220 ET=19 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |
     |     [[Observe triggered]]
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf5 T:0xc0 O:1221 ET=20 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf6 T:0xc0 O:1221 ET=20 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf7 T:0xc0 O:1221 ET=20 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xf8 T:0xc0 O:1221 ET=20 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |

      Figure 7: Example of NON Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option
                               (without Loss)

10.2.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits

   Figure 8 illustrates the same scenario as Figure 7, but this time
   with eleven (11) payloads, which exceeds MAX_PAYLOADS.  There is no
   loss experienced.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x81 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x82 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8a T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by client using
      |       'Continue' Q-Block2]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 QB2:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8b T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:10/0/1024
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x91 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x92 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x9a T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by client using
      |       'Continue' Q-Block2]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 QB2:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x9b T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:10/0/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |

      Figure 8: Example of NON Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option
                               (without Loss)

10.2.3.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS with Recovery

   Figure 9 shows an example of an Observe that is triggered but for
   which some notification blocks are lost.  The client detects the
   missing blocks and requests their retransmission.  It does so by
   indicating the blocks that are missing as one or more Q-Block2
   options.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa1 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:0/1/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xa2 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xaa T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[Some of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[Server sends next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xab T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:10/0/1024
      |     [[On seeing a payload from the next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET,
      |       client realizes blocks are missing and asks for the
      |       missing ones in one go]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 QB2:1/0/1024\
      |          |                             QB2:9/0/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xac T:0xf3 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xad T:0xf3 ET=23 QB2:9/1/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client realizes block is still missing and asks for
      |       missing block]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x05 T:0xf4 QB2:1/0/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xae T:0xf4 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |

      Figure 9: Example of NON Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option
                              (Block Recovery)

10.2.4.  Handling Recovery by Setting the M Bit

   Figure 10 shows an example where an Observe is triggered but only the
   first two notification blocks reach the client.  In order to retrieve
   the missing blocks, the client sends a request with a single Q-Block2
   option with the M bit set.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xb1 T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xb2 T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:1/1/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xb3 T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:2/1/1024
      |     X<---+ [[Payloads 4 - 9 not detailed]]
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xb9 T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[Some of the MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_TIMEOUT_RANDOM (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[Server sends next MAX_PAYLOADS_SET]]
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xba T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:10/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client realizes blocks are missing and asks for the
      |       missing ones in one go by setting the M bit]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 QB2:2/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xbb T:0xf5 ET=24 QB2:2/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xc2 T:0xf5 ET=24 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by client using 'Continue'
      |       Q-Block2]]
      +--------->| NON GET /path M:0x87 T:0xf6 QB2:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xc3 T:0xf0 O:1237 ET=24 QB2:10/0/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |

      Figure 10: Example of NON Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option
                    (Block Recovery with the M Bit Set)

10.3.  Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options

10.3.1.  A Simple Example

   Figure 11 illustrates an example of a FETCH using both the Q-Block1
   and Q-Block2 options along with an Observe option.  No loss is
   experienced.

    CoAP        CoAP
   Client      Server
     |          |
     +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x10 T:0x90 O:0 RT=30 QB1:0/1/1024
     +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x11 T:0x91 O:0 RT=30 QB1:1/1/1024
     +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x12 T:0x93 O:0 RT=30 QB1:2/0/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x60 T:0x93 O:1320 ET=90 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x61 T:0x93 O:1320 ET=90 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x62 T:0x93 O:1320 ET=90 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x63 T:0x93 O:1320 ET=90 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |
     |     [[Observe triggered]]
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x64 T:0x93 O:1321 ET=91 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x65 T:0x93 O:1321 ET=91 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x66 T:0x93 O:1321 ET=91 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x67 T:0x93 O:1321 ET=91 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |

      Figure 11: Example of a NON FETCH with the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2
                           Options (without Loss)

10.3.2.  Handling MAX_PAYLOADS Limits

   Figure 12 illustrates the same scenario as Figure 11, but this time
   with eleven (11) payloads in both directions, which exceeds
   MAX_PAYLOADS.  There is no loss experienced.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x30 T:0xa0 O:0 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x31 T:0xa1 O:0 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x39 T:0xa9 O:0 RT=10 QB1:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by server]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.31 M:0x80 T:0xa9
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x3a T:0xaa O:0 RT=10 QB1:10/0/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x81 T:0xaa O:1334 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x82 T:0xaa O:1334 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8a T:0xaa O:1334 ET=21 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by client using
      |       'Continue' Q-Block2]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x3b T:0xab QB2:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8b T:0xaa O:1334 ET=21 QB2:10/0/1024
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8c T:0xaa O:1335 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x8d T:0xaa O:1335 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ [[Payloads 3 - 9 not detailed]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x95 T:0xaa O:1335 ET=22 QB2:9/1/1024
   [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET has been received]]
      |     [[MAX_PAYLOADS_SET acknowledged by client using
      |       'Continue' Q-Block2]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x3c T:0xac QB2:10/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0x96 T:0xaa O:1335 ET=22 QB2:10/0/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |

      Figure 12: Example of a NON FETCH with the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2
                           Options (without Loss)

   Note that, as 'Continue' was used, the server continues to use the
   same token (0xaa), since the 'Continue' is not being used as a
   request for a new set of packets but rather is being used to instruct
   the server to continue its transmission (Section 7.2).

10.3.3.  Handling Recovery

   Consider now a scenario where some blocks are lost in transmission,
   as illustrated in Figure 13.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x50 T:0xc0 O:0 RT=31 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--->X     | NON FETCH /path M:0x51 T:0xc1 O:0 RT=31 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--->X     | NON FETCH /path M:0x52 T:0xc2 O:0 RT=31 QB1:2/1/1024
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x53 T:0xc3 O:0 RT=31 QB1:3/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (server) delay expires]]

      Figure 13: Example of a NON FETCH with the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2
                            Options (with Loss)

   The server realizes that some blocks are missing and asks for the
   missing blocks in one go (Figure 14).  It does so by indicating which
   blocks have not been received in the data portion of the response.
   The token used in the response is the token that was used in the last
   received payload.  The client can then derive the Request-Tag by
   matching the token with the sent request.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      |<---------+ NON 4.08 M:0xa0 T:0xc3 [Missing 1,2]
      |     [[Client responds with missing payloads]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x54 T:0xc4 O:0 RT=31 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x55 T:0xc5 O:0 RT=31 QB1:2/1/1024
      |     [[Server received FETCH body,
      |       starts transmitting response body]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa1 T:0xc3 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:0/1/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xa2 T:0xc3 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa3 T:0xc3 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xa4 T:0xc3 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:3/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (client) delay expires]]
      |          |

        Figure 14: Example of a NON Request with the Q-Block1 Option
                             (Server Recovery)

   The client realizes that not all the payloads of the response have
   been returned.  The client then asks for the missing blocks in one go
   (Figure 15).  Note that, following Section 2.7 of [RFC 7959], the
   FETCH request does not include the Q-Block1 or any payload.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x56 T:0xc6 RT=31 QB2:1/0/1024\
      |          |                                     QB2:3/0/1024
      |     [[Server receives FETCH request for missing payloads,
      |       starts transmitting missing blocks]]
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xa5 T:0xc6 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa6 T:0xc6 ET=23 QB2:3/0/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client realizes block is still missing and asks for
      |       missing block]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x57 T:0xc7 RT=31 QB2:1/0/1024
      |     [[Server receives FETCH request for missing payload,
      |       starts transmitting missing block]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa7 T:0xc7 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa8 T:0xc3 O:1337 ET=24 QB2:0/1/1024
      |     X<---+ NON 2.05 M:0xa9 T:0xc3 O:1337 ET=24 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xaa T:0xc3 O:1337 ET=24 QB2:2/0/1024
   [[NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client realizes block is still missing and asks for
      |       missing block]]
      +--------->| NON FETCH /path M:0x58 T:0xc8 RT=31 QB2:1/0/1024
      |     [[Server receives FETCH request for missing payload,
      |       starts transmitting missing block]]
      |<---------+ NON 2.05 M:0xa7 T:0xc8 ET=24 QB2:1/1/1024
   [[Body has been received]]
      |   ...    |

        Figure 15: Example of a NON Request with the Q-Block1 Option
                             (Client Recovery)

11.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in Section 7 of [RFC 7959] should be
   taken into account.

   Security considerations discussed in Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of
   [RFC 7252] should also be taken into account.

   OSCORE provides end-to-end protection of all information that is not
   required for proxy operations and requires that a security context is
   set up (Section 3.1 of [RFC 8613]).  It can be trusted that the source
   endpoint is legitimate even if the NoSec mode is used.  However, an
   intermediary node can modify the unprotected Outer Q-Block1 and/or
   Q-Block2 options to cause a Q-Block transfer to fail or keep
   requesting all the blocks by setting the M bit and thus causing
   attack amplification.  As discussed in Section 12.1 of [RFC 8613],
   applications need to consider that certain message fields and message
   types are not protected end to end and may be spoofed or manipulated.
   Therefore, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the NoSec mode if either the
   Q-Block1 or Q-Block2 option is used.

   If OSCORE is not used, it is also NOT RECOMMENDED to use the NoSec
   mode if either the Q-Block1 or Q-Block2 option is used.

   If NoSec is being used, Appendix D.5 of [RFC 8613] discusses the
   security analysis and considerations for unprotected message fields
   even if OSCORE is not being used.

   Security considerations related to the use of Request-Tag are
   discussed in Section 5 of [RFC 9175].

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  CoAP Option Numbers Registry

   IANA has added the following entries to the "CoAP Option Numbers"
   subregistry [IANA-Options] defined in [RFC 7252] within the
   "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry:

                     +========+==========+===========+
                     | Number | Name     | Reference |
                     +========+==========+===========+
                     | 19     | Q-Block1 | RFC 9177  |
                     +--------+----------+-----------+
                     | 31     | Q-Block2 | RFC 9177  |
                     +--------+----------+-----------+

                         Table 4: Additions to CoAP
                          Option Numbers Registry

12.2.  Media Type Registration

   IANA has registered the "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" media
   type in the "Media Types" registry [IANA-MediaTypes].  This
   registration follows the procedures specified in [RFC 6838].

   Type name:  application

   Subtype name:  missing-blocks+cbor-seq

   Required parameters:  N/A

   Optional parameters:  N/A

   Encoding considerations:  Must be encoded as a CBOR Sequence
      [RFC 8742], as defined in Section 5 of RFC 9177.

   Security considerations:  See Section 11 of RFC 9177.

   Interoperability considerations:  N/A

   Published specification:  RFC 9177

   Applications that use this media type:  Data serialization and
      deserialization.  In particular, the type is used by applications
      relying upon block-wise transfers, allowing a server to specify
      non-received blocks and request their retransmission, as defined
      in Section 4 of RFC 9177.

   Fragment identifier considerations:  N/A

   Additional information:  N/A

   Person & email address to contact for further information:  IETF,
      iesg@ietf.org

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  none

   Author:  See Authors' Addresses section of RFC 9177.

   Change controller:  IESG

   Provisional registration?  No

12.3.  CoAP Content-Formats Registry

   IANA has registered the following CoAP Content-Format for the
   "application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq" media type in the "CoAP
   Content-Formats" registry [IANA-Format] defined in [RFC 7252] within
   the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry:

   +=====================================+==========+=====+===========+
   | Media Type                          | Encoding | ID  | Reference |
   +=====================================+==========+=====+===========+
   | application/missing-blocks+cbor-seq | -        | 272 | RFC 9177  |
   +-------------------------------------+----------+-----+-----------+

            Table 5: Addition to CoAP Content-Format Registry

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC 2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.

   [RFC 6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6838>.

   [RFC 7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7252>.

   [RFC 7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7641>.

   [RFC 7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7959>.

   [RFC 8075]  Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
              E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 8075, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8075>.

   [RFC 8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8132>.

   [RFC 8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.

   [RFC 8323]  Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
              Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
              Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
              RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8323, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8323>.

   [RFC 8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8610>.

   [RFC 8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8613>.

   [RFC 8742]  Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8742, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8742>.

   [RFC 8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8949>.

   [RFC 9175]  Amsüss, C., Preuß Mattsson, J., and G. Selander,
              "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP): Echo, Request-
              Tag, and Token Processing", RFC 9175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 9175, February 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9175>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [DOTS-QUICK-BLOCKS]
              Boucadair, M. and J. Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-
              Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel
              Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bosh-dots-quick-
              blocks-03, 29 June 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bosh-dots-
              quick-blocks-03>.

   [DOTS-TELEMETRY]
              Boucadair, M., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Doron, E., Chen, M.,
              and J. Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
              Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19, 4 January 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dots-
              telemetry-19>.

   [IANA-Format]
              IANA, "CoAP Content-Formats",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/>.

   [IANA-MediaTypes]
              IANA, "Media Types",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>.

   [IANA-Options]
              IANA, "CoAP Option Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/>.

   [RFC 6928]  Chu, J., Dukkipati, N., Cheng, Y., and M. Mathis,
              "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 6928,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 6928, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6928>.

   [RFC 7967]  Bhattacharyya, A., Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, A., and T.
              Bose, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Option for
              No Server Response", RFC 7967, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7967,
              August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7967>.

   [RFC 8974]  Hartke, K. and M. Richardson, "Extended Tokens and
              Stateless Clients in the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8974, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8974, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8974>.

   [RFC 9132]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K,
              "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", RFC 9132,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC 9132, September 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9132>.

Appendix A.  Examples with Confirmable Messages

   The following examples assume NSTART has been increased to 3.

   The conventions provided in Section 10 are used in the following
   subsections.

A.1.  Q-Block1 Option

   Let's now consider the use of the Q-Block1 option with a CON request,
   as shown in Figure 16.  All the blocks are acknowledged (as noted
   with "ACK").

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x02 T:0xf1 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x03 T:0xf2 RT=10 QB1:2/1/1024
   [[NSTART(3) limit reached]]
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x01
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x04 T:0xf3 RT=10 QB1:3/0/1024
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x02
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x03
      |<---------+ ACK 2.04 M:0x04
      |          |

        Figure 16: Example of a CON Request with the Q-Block1 Option
                               (without Loss)

   Now, suppose that a new body of data is to be sent but with some
   blocks dropped in transmission, as illustrated in Figure 17.  The
   client will retry sending blocks for which no ACK was received.

     CoAP        CoAP
    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x05 T:0xf4 RT=11 QB1:0/1/1024
      +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
      +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
   [[NSTART(3) limit reached]]
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x05
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x08 T:0xf7 RT=11 QB1:3/1/1024
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x08
      |   ...    |
   [[ACK TIMEOUT (client) for M:0x06 delay expires]]
      |     [[Client retransmits packet]]
      +--------->| CON PUT /path M:0x06 T:0xf5 RT=11 QB1:1/1/1024
   [[ACK TIMEOUT (client) for M:0x07 delay expires]]
      |     [[Client retransmits packet]]
      +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
      |<---------+ ACK 0.00 M:0x06
      |   ...    |
   [[ACK TIMEOUT exponential backoff (client) delay expires]]
      |     [[Client retransmits packet]]
      +--->X     | CON PUT /path M:0x07 T:0xf6 RT=11 QB1:2/1/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[Either body transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
      or successfully transmitted]]

        Figure 17: Example of a CON Request with the Q-Block1 Option
                              (Block Recovery)

   It is up to the implementation as to whether the application process
   stops trying to send this particular body of data on reaching
   MAX_RETRANSMIT for any payload or separately tries to initiate the
   new transmission of the payloads that have not been acknowledged
   under these adverse traffic conditions.

   If transient network losses are possible, then the use of NON should
   be considered.

A.2.  Q-Block2 Option

   An example of the use of the Q-Block2 option with Confirmable
   messages is shown in Figure 18.

    Client      Server
      |          |
      +--------->| CON GET /path M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:0 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ ACK 2.05 M:0x01 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe1 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe2 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:2/1/1024
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe3 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:3/0/1024
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe1
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe2
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe3
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe4 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe5 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe6 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:2/1/1024
   [[NSTART(3) limit reached]]
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe4
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe7 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:3/0/1024
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe5
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe6
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe7
      |   ...    |
      |     [[Observe triggered]]
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe8 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:0/1/1024
      |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
      |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
   [[NSTART(3) limit reached]]
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe8
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xeb T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:3/0/1024
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xeb
      |   ...    |
   [[ACK TIMEOUT (server) for M:0xe9 delay expires]]
      |     [[Server retransmits packet]]
      |<---------+ CON 2.05 M:0xe9 T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:1/1/1024
   [[ACK TIMEOUT (server) for M:0xea delay expires]]
      |     [[Server retransmits packet]]
      |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
      |--------->+ ACK 0.00 M:0xe9
      |   ...    |
   [[ACK TIMEOUT exponential backoff (server) delay expires]]
      |     [[Server retransmits packet]]
      |     X<---+ CON 2.05 M:0xea T:0xf0 O:1236 ET=23 QB2:2/1/1024
      |   ...    |
   [[Either body transmission failure (acknowledge retry timeout)
      or successfully transmitted]]

      Figure 18: Example of CON Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option

   It is up to the implementation as to whether the application process
   stops trying to send this particular body of data on reaching
   MAX_RETRANSMIT for any payload or separately tries to initiate the
   new transmission of the payloads that have not been acknowledged
   under these adverse traffic conditions.

   If transient network losses are possible, then the use of NON should
   be considered.

Appendix B.  Examples with Reliable Transports

   The conventions provided in Section 10 are used in the following
   subsections.

B.1.  Q-Block1 Option

   Let's now consider the use of the Q-Block1 option with a reliable
   transport, as shown in Figure 19.  There is no acknowledgment of
   packets at the CoAP layer, just the final result.

    CoAP        CoAP
   Client      Server
     |          |
     +--------->| PUT /path T:0xf0 RT=10 QB1:0/1/1024
     +--------->| PUT /path T:0xf1 RT=10 QB1:1/1/1024
     +--------->| PUT /path T:0xf2 RT=10 QB1:2/1/1024
     +--------->| PUT /path T:0xf3 RT=10 QB1:3/0/1024
     |<---------+ 2.04
     |          |

     Figure 19: Example of a Reliable Request with the Q-Block1 Option

   If transient network losses are possible, then the use of unreliable
   transport with NON should be considered.

B.2.  Q-Block2 Option

   An example of the use of the Q-Block2 option with a reliable
   transport is shown in Figure 20.

   Client      Server
     |          |
     +--------->| GET /path T:0xf0 O:0 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1234 ET=21 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |
     |     [[Observe triggered]]
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:0/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:1/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:2/1/1024
     |<---------+ 2.05 T:0xf0 O:1235 ET=22 QB2:3/0/1024
     |   ...    |

        Figure 20: Example of Notifications with the Q-Block2 Option

   If transient network losses are possible, then the use of unreliable
   transport with NON should be considered.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Achim Kraus, Jim Schaad, and Michael Richardson for their
   comments.

   Special thanks to Christian Amsüss, Carsten Bormann, and Marco Tiloca
   for their suggestions and several reviews, which improved this
   specification significantly.  Thanks to Francesca Palombini for the
   AD review.  Thanks to Pete Resnick for the Gen-ART review, Colin
   Perkins for the TSVART review, and Emmanuel Baccelli for the IOT-DIR
   review.  Thanks to Martin Duke, Éric Vyncke, Benjamin Kaduk, Roman
   Danyliw, John Scudder, and Lars Eggert for the IESG review.

   Some text from [RFC 7959] is reused for the readers' convenience.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   35000 Rennes
   France
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Jon Shallow
   United Kingdom
   Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com



RFC TOTAL SIZE: 99517 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2022
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)