[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-shelby-core-resource-directory) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CoRE                                                           Z. Shelby
Internet-Draft                                                       ARM
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Koster
Expires: 14 January 2021                                     SmartThings
                                                              C. Bormann
                                                 Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                         P. van der Stok
                                                              consultant
                                                          C. Amsüss, Ed.
                                                            13 July 2020


                        CoRE Resource Directory
                 draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25

Abstract

   In many IoT applications, direct discovery of resources is not
   practical due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where
   multicast traffic is inefficient.  These problems can be solved by
   employing an entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which contains
   information about resources held on other servers, allowing lookups
   to be performed for those resources.  The input to an RD is composed
   of links and the output is composed of links constructed from the
   information stored in the RD.  This document specifies the web
   interfaces that an RD supports for web servers to discover the RD and
   to register, maintain, lookup and remove information on resources.
   Furthermore, new target attributes useful in conjunction with an RD
   are defined.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this document takes place on the CORE Working Group
   mailing list (core@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/
   (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/).

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/core-wg/resource-directory (https://github.com/
   core-wg/resource-directory).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 January 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Architecture and Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  RD Content Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Link-local addresses and zone identifiers . . . . . . . .  12
     3.5.  Use Case: Cellular M2M  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.6.  Use Case: Home and Building Automation  . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.7.  Use Case: Link Catalogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  RD discovery and other interface-independent components . . .  14
     4.1.  Finding a Resource Directory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.1.1.  Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO)  . . . . . .  17
       4.1.2.  Using DNS-SD to discover a Resource Directory . . . .  19
     4.2.  Payload Content Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.3.  URI Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.1.  Simple Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     5.2.  Third-party registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     5.3.  Operations on the Registration Resource . . . . . . . . .  29



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


       5.3.1.  Registration Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       5.3.2.  Registration Removal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       5.3.3.  Further operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   6.  RD Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     6.1.  Resource lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     6.2.  Lookup filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     6.3.  Resource lookup examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     6.4.  Endpoint lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   7.  Security policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     7.1.  Endpoint name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       7.1.1.  Random endpoint names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     7.2.  Entered resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     7.3.  Link confidentiality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     7.4.  Segmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     8.1.  Endpoint Identification and Authentication  . . . . . . .  44
     8.2.  Access Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
     8.3.  Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
     9.1.  Resource Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
     9.2.  IPv6 ND Resource Directory Address Option . . . . . . . .  46
     9.3.  RD Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       9.3.1.  Full description of the "Endpoint Type" Registration
               Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
     9.4.  "Endpoint Type" (et=) RD Parameter values . . . . . . . .  49
     9.5.  Multicast Address Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     9.6.  Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     9.7.  Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Number
           Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   10. Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
     10.1.  Lighting Installation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
       10.1.1.  Installation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
       10.1.2.  RD entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
     10.2.  OMA Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) Example  . . . . . . . . . .  56
       10.2.1.  The LWM2M Object Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
       10.2.2.  LWM2M Register Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
       10.2.3.  LWM2M Update Endpoint Registration . . . . . . . . .  59
       10.2.4.  LWM2M De-Register Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
   12. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  71
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  72
   Appendix A.  Groups Registration and Lookup . . . . . . . . . . .  75
   Appendix B.  Web links and the Resource Directory . . . . . . . .  76
     B.1.  A simple example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77
       B.1.1.  Resolving the URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77
       B.1.2.  Interpreting attributes and relations . . . . . . . .  78



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


     B.2.  A slightly more complex example . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
     B.3.  Enter the Resource Directory  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
     B.4.  A note on differences between link-format and Link header
           fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
   Appendix C.  Limited Link Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82

1.  Introduction

   In the work on Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE), a REST
   architecture suitable for constrained nodes (e.g. with limited RAM
   and ROM [RFC7228]) and networks (e.g. 6LoWPAN [RFC4944]) has been
   established and is used in Internet-of-Things (IoT) or machine-to-
   machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building
   automation.

   The discovery of resources offered by a constrained server is very
   important in machine-to-machine applications where there are no
   humans in the loop and static interfaces result in fragility.  The
   discovery of resources provided by an HTTP Web Server is typically
   called Web Linking [RFC8288].  The use of Web Linking for the
   description and discovery of resources hosted by constrained web
   servers is specified by the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690].  However,
   [RFC6690] only describes how to discover resources from the web
   server that hosts them by querying "/.well-known/core".  In many
   constrained scenarios, direct discovery of resources is not practical
   due to sleeping nodes, disperse networks, or networks where multicast
   traffic is inefficient.  These problems can be solved by employing an
   entity called a Resource Directory (RD), which contains information
   about resources held on other servers, allowing lookups to be
   performed for those resources.

   This document specifies the web interfaces that an RD supports for
   web servers to discover the RD and to register, maintain, lookup and
   remove information on resources.  Furthermore, new target attributes
   useful in conjunction with an RD are defined.  Although the examples
   in this document show the use of these interfaces with CoAP
   [RFC7252], they can be applied in an equivalent manner to HTTP
   [RFC7230].

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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
   "octet".

   This specification requires readers to be familiar with all the terms
   and concepts that are discussed in [RFC3986], [RFC8288] and
   [RFC6690].  Readers should also be familiar with the terms and
   concepts discussed in [RFC7252].  To describe the REST interfaces
   defined in this specification, the URI Template format is used
   [RFC6570].

   This specification makes use of the following additional terminology:

   resolve against
      The expression "a URI-reference is _resolved against_ a base URI"
      is used to describe the process of [RFC3986] Section 5.2.
      Noteworthy corner cases are that if the URI-reference is a (full)
      URI and resolved against any base URI, that gives the original
      full URI, and that resolving an empty URI reference gives the base
      URI without any fragment identifier.

   Resource Directory (RD)
      A web entity that stores information about web resources and
      implements the REST interfaces defined in this specification for
      discovery, for the creation, the maintenance and the removal of
      registrations, and for lookup of the registered resources.

   Sector
      In the context of an RD, a sector is a logical grouping of
      endpoints.


      The abbreviation "d=" is used for the sector in query parameters
      for compatibility with deployed implementations.

   Endpoint
      Endpoint (EP) is a term used to describe a web server or client in
      [RFC7252].  In the context of this specification an endpoint is
      used to describe a web server that registers resources to the RD.
      An endpoint is identified by its endpoint name, which is included
      during registration, and has a unique name within the associated
      sector of the registration.

   Registration Base URI
      The Base URI of a Registration is a URI that typically gives
      scheme and authority information about an Endpoint.  The
      Registration Base URI is provided at registration time, and is
      used by the RD to resolve relative references of the registration
      into URIs.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Target
      The target of a link is the destination address (URI) of the link.
      It is sometimes identified with "href=", or displayed as
      "<target>".  Relative targets need resolving with respect to the
      Base URI (section 5.2 of [RFC3986]).


      This use of the term Target is consistent with [RFC8288]'s use of
      the term.

   Context
      The context of a link is the source address (URI) of the link, and
      describes which resource is linked to the target.  A link's
      context is made explicit in serialized links as the "anchor="
      attribute.


      This use of the term Context is consistent with [RFC8288]'s use of
      the term.

   Directory Resource
      A resource in the RD containing registration resources.

   Registration Resource
      A resource in the RD that contains information about an Endpoint
      and its links.

   Commissioning Tool
      Commissioning Tool (CT) is a device that assists during the
      installation of the network by assigning values to parameters,
      naming endpoints and groups, or adapting the installation to the
      needs of the applications.

   Registrant-ep
      Registrant-ep is the endpoint that is registered into the RD.  The
      registrant-ep can register itself, or a CT registers the
      registrant-ep.

   RDAO
      Resource Directory Address Option.  A new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
      option defined for announcing an RD's address.

3.  Architecture and Use Cases








Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


3.1.  Principles

   The RD is primarily a tool to make discovery operations more
   efficient than querying /.well-known/core on all connected devices,
   or across boundaries that would be limiting those operations.

   It provides information about resources hosted by other devices that
   could otherwise only be obtained by directly querying the /.well-
   known/core resource on these other devices, either by a unicast
   request or a multicast request.

   Information SHOULD only be stored in the RD if it can be obtained by
   querying the described device's /.well-known/core resource directly.

   Data in the RD can only be provided by the device which hosts those
   data or a dedicated Commissioning Tool (CT).  These CTs are thought
   to act on behalf of endpoints too constrained, or generally unable,
   to present that information themselves.  No other client can modify
   data in the RD.  Changes to the information in the RD do not
   propagate automatically back to the web servers from where the
   information originated.

3.2.  Architecture

   The RD architecture is illustrated in Figure 1.  An RD is used as a
   repository of registrations describing resources hosted on other web
   servers, also called endpoints (EP).  An endpoint is a web server
   associated with a scheme, IP address and port.  A physical node may
   host one or more endpoints.  The RD implements a set of REST
   interfaces for endpoints to register and maintain RD registrations,
   and for endpoints to lookup resources from the RD.  An RD can be
   logically segmented by the use of Sectors.

   A mechanism to discover an RD using CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] is
   defined.

   Registrations in the RD are soft state and need to be periodically
   refreshed.

   An endpoint uses specific interfaces to register, update and remove a
   registration.  It is also possible for an RD to fetch Web Links from
   endpoints and add their contents to its registrations.

   At the first registration of an endpoint, a "registration resource"
   is created, the location of which is returned to the registering
   endpoint.  The registering endpoint uses this registration resource
   to manage the contents of registrations.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   A lookup interface for discovering any of the Web Links stored in the
   RD is provided using the CoRE Link Format.

                Registration         Lookup
                 Interface         Interface
     +----+          |                 |
     | EP |----      |                 |
     +----+    ----  |                 |
                   --|-    +------+    |
     +----+          | ----|      |    |     +--------+
     | EP | ---------|-----|  RD  |----|-----| Client |
     +----+          | ----|      |    |     +--------+
                   --|-    +------+    |
     +----+    ----  |                 |
     | CT |----      |                 |
     +----+

                       Figure 1: The RD architecture.

   A Registrant-EP MAY keep concurrent registrations to more than one RD
   at the same time if explicitly configured to do so, but that is not
   expected to be supported by typical EP implementations.  Any such
   registrations are independent of each other.  The usual expectation
   when multiple discovery mechanisms or addresses are configured is
   that they constitute a fall-back path for a single registration.

3.3.  RD Content Model

   The Entity-Relationship (ER) models shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3
   model the contents of /.well-known/core and the RD respectively, with
   entity-relationship diagrams [ER].  Entities (rectangles) are used
   for concepts that exist independently.  Attributes (ovals) are used
   for concepts that exist only in connection with a related entity.
   Relations (diamonds) give a semantic meaning to the relation between
   entities.  Numbers specify the cardinality of the relations.

   Some of the attribute values are URIs.  Those values are always full
   URIs and never relative references in the information model.  They
   can, however, be expressed as relative references in serializations,
   and often are.

   These models provide an abstract view of the information expressed in
   link-format documents and an RD.  They cover the concepts, but not
   necessarily all details of an RD's operation; they are meant to give
   an overview, and not be a template for implementations.






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


                       +----------------------+
                       |   /.well-known/core  |
                       +----------------------+
                                  |
                                  | 1
                          ////////\\\\\\\
                         <    contains   >
                          \\\\\\\\///////
                                  |
                                  | 0+
                        +--------------------+
                        |      link          |
                        +--------------------+
                                  |
                                  |  1   oooooooo
                                  +-----o target o
                                  |      oooooooo
             oooooooooooo   0+    |
            o    target  o--------+
            o  attribute o        | 0+   oooooo
             oooooooooooo         +-----o rel  o
                                  |      oooooo
                                  |
                                  | 1    ooooooooo
                                  +-----o context o
                                         ooooooooo

           Figure 2: ER Model of the content of /.well-known/core

   The model shown in Figure 2 models the contents of /.well-known/core
   which contains:

   *  a set of links belonging to the hosting web server

   The web server is free to choose links it deems appropriate to be
   exposed in its ".well-known/core".  Typically, the links describe
   resources that are served by the host, but the set can also contain
   links to resources on other servers (see examples in [RFC6690] page
   14).  The set does not necessarily contain links to all resources
   served by the host.

   A link has the following attributes (see [RFC8288]):

   *  Zero or more link relations: They describe relations between the
      link context and the link target.

      In link-format serialization, they are expressed as space-
      separated values in the "rel" attribute, and default to "hosts".



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  A link context URI: It defines the source of the relation, e.g.
      _who_ "hosts" something.

      In link-format serialization, it is expressed in the "anchor"
      attribute.  It defaults to that document's URI.

   *  A link target URI: It defines the destination of the relation
      (e.g. _what_ is hosted), and is the topic of all target
      attributes.

      In link-format serialization, it is expressed between angular
      brackets, and sometimes called the "href".

   *  Other target attributes (e.g. resource type (rt), interface (if),
      or content format (ct)).  These provide additional information
      about the target URI.



































Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


                    +--------------+
                    +      RD      +
                    +--------------+
                           | 1
                           |
                           |
                           |
                           |
                      //////\\\\
                     < contains >
                      \\\\\/////
                           |
                        0+ |
    ooooooo     1  +---------------+
   o  base o-------|  registration |
    ooooooo        +---------------+
                       |       | 1
                       |       +--------------+
          oooooooo   1 |                      |
         o  href  o----+                 /////\\\\
          oooooooo     |                < contains >
                       |                 \\\\\/////
          oooooooo   1 |                      |
         o   ep   o----+                      | 0+
          oooooooo     |             +------------------+
                       |             |      link        |
          oooooooo 0-1 |             +------------------+
         o    d   o----+                      |
          oooooooo     |                      |  1   oooooooo
                       |                      +-----o target o
          oooooooo   1 |                      |      oooooooo
         o   lt   o----+     ooooooooooo   0+ |
          oooooooo     |    o  target   o-----+
                       |    o attribute o     | 0+   oooooo
       ooooooooooo 0+  |     ooooooooooo      +-----o rel  o
      o  endpoint o----+                      |      oooooo
      o attribute o                           |
       ooooooooooo                            | 1   ooooooooo
                                              +----o context o
                                                    ooooooooo

                Figure 3: ER Model of the content of the RD

   The model shown in Figure 3 models the contents of the RD which
   contains in addition to /.well-known/core:

   *  0 to n Registrations of endpoints,




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   A registration is associated with one endpoint.  A registration
   defines a set of links as defined for /.well-known/core.  A
   Registration has six types of attributes:

   *  an endpoint name ("ep", a Unicode string) unique within a sector

   *  a Registration Base URI ("base", a URI typically describing the
      scheme://authority part)

   *  a lifetime ("lt"),

   *  a registration resource location inside the RD ("href"),

   *  optionally a sector ("d", a Unicode string)

   *  optional additional endpoint attributes (from Section 9.3)

   The cardinality of "base" is currently 1; future documents are
   invited to extend the RD specification to support multiple values
   (e.g.  [I-D.silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation]).  Its value
   is used as a Base URI when resolving URIs in the links contained in
   the endpoint.

   Links are modelled as they are in Figure 2.

3.4.  Link-local addresses and zone identifiers

   Registration Base URIs can contain link-local IP addresses.  To be
   usable across hosts, those can not be serialized to contain zone
   identifiers (see [RFC6874] Section 1).

   Link-local addresses can only be used on a single link (therefore RD
   servers can not announce them when queried on a different link), and
   lookup clients using them need to keep track of which interface they
   got them from.

   Therefore, it is advisable in many scenarios to use addresses with
   larger scope if available.

3.5.  Use Case: Cellular M2M

   Over the last few years, mobile operators around the world have
   focused on development of M2M solutions in order to expand the
   business to the new type of users: machines.  The machines are
   connected directly to a mobile network using an appropriate embedded
   wireless interface (GSM/GPRS, WCDMA, LTE) or via a gateway providing
   short and wide range wireless interfaces.  From the system design
   point of view, the ambition is to design horizontal solutions that



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   can enable utilization of machines in different applications
   depending on their current availability and capabilities as well as
   application requirements, thus avoiding silo like solutions.  One of
   the crucial enablers of such design is the ability to discover
   resources (and thus the endpoints they are hosted on) capable of
   providing required information at a given time or acting on
   instructions from the end users.

   Imagine a scenario where endpoints installed on vehicles enable
   tracking of the position of these vehicles for fleet management
   purposes and allow monitoring of environment parameters.  During the
   boot-up process endpoints register with an RD, which is hosted by the
   mobile operator or somewhere in the cloud.  Periodically, these
   endpoints update their registration and may modify resources they
   offer.

   When endpoints are not always connected, for example because they
   enter a sleep mode, a remote server is usually used to provide proxy
   access to the endpoints.  Mobile apps or web applications for
   environment monitoring contact the RD, look up the endpoints capable
   of providing information about the environment using an appropriate
   set of link parameters, obtain information on how to contact them
   (URLs of the proxy server), and then initiate interaction to obtain
   information that is finally processed, displayed on the screen and
   usually stored in a database.  Similarly, fleet management systems
   provide the appropriate link parameters to the RD to look up for EPs
   deployed on the vehicles the application is responsible for.

3.6.  Use Case: Home and Building Automation

   Home and commercial building automation systems can benefit from the
   use of M2M web services.  The discovery requirements of these
   applications are demanding.  Home automation usually relies on run-
   time discovery to commission the system, whereas in building
   automation a combination of professional commissioning and run-time
   discovery is used.  Both home and building automation involve peer-
   to-peer interactions between endpoints, and involve battery-powered
   sleeping devices.

   Two phases can be discerned for a network servicing the system: (1)
   installation and (2) operation.  During the operational phase, the
   network is connected to the Internet with a Border router (6LBR) and
   the nodes connected to the network can use the Internet services that
   are provided by the Internet Provider or the network administrator.
   During the installation phase, the network is completely stand-alone,
   no 6LBR is connected, and the network only supports the IP
   communication between the connected nodes.  The installation phase is
   usually followed by the operational phase.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


3.7.  Use Case: Link Catalogues

   Resources may be shared through data brokers that have no knowledge
   beforehand of who is going to consume the data.  An RD can be used to
   hold links about resources and services hosted anywhere to make them
   discoverable by a general class of applications.

   For example, environmental and weather sensors that generate data for
   public consumption may provide data to an intermediary server, or
   broker.  Sensor data are published to the intermediary upon changes
   or at regular intervals.  Descriptions of the sensors that resolve to
   links to sensor data may be published to an RD.  Applications wishing
   to consume the data can use RD Lookup to discover and resolve links
   to the desired resources and endpoints.  The RD service need not be
   coupled with the data intermediary service.  Mapping of RDs to data
   intermediaries may be many-to-many.

   Metadata in web link formats like [RFC6690] which may be internally
   stored as triples, or relation/attribute pairs providing metadata
   about resource links, need to be supported by RDs.  External
   catalogues that are represented in other formats may be converted to
   common web linking formats for storage and access by RDs.  Since it
   is common practice for these to be encoded in URNs [RFC8141], simple
   and lossless structural transforms should generally be sufficient to
   store external metadata in RDs.

   The additional features of an RD allow sectors to be defined to
   enable access to a particular set of resources from particular
   applications.  This provides isolation and protection of sensitive
   data when needed.  Application groups with multicast addresses may be
   defined to support efficient data transport.

4.  RD discovery and other interface-independent components

   This and the following sections define the required set of REST
   interfaces between an RD, endpoints and lookup clients.  Although the
   examples throughout these sections assume the use of CoAP [RFC7252],
   these REST interfaces can also be realized using HTTP [RFC7230].
   Only multicast discovery operations are not possible on HTTP, and
   Simple Registration can not be executed as base attribute (which is
   mandatory for HTTP) can not be used there.  In all definitions in
   these sections, both CoAP response codes (with dot notation) and HTTP
   response codes (without dot notation) are shown.  An RD implementing
   this specification MUST support the discovery, registration, update,
   lookup, and removal interfaces.

   All operations on the contents of the RD MUST be atomic and
   idempotent.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   For several operations, interface templates are given in list form;
   those describe the operation participants, request codes, URIs,
   content formats and outcomes.  Sections of those templates contain
   normative content about Interaction, Method, URI Template and URI
   Template Variables as well as the details of the Success condition.
   The additional sections on options like Content-Format and on Failure
   codes give typical cases that an implementation of the RD should deal
   with.  Those serve to illustrate the typical responses to readers who
   are not yet familiar with all the details of CoAP based interfaces;
   they do not limit what a server may respond under atypical
   circumstances.

   REST clients (registrant-EPs and CTs during registration and
   maintenance, lookup clients, RD servers during simple registrations)
   MUST be prepared to receive any unsuccessful code and act upon it
   according to its definition, options and/or payload to the best of
   their capabilities, falling back to failing the operation if recovery
   is not possible.  In particular, they should retry the request upon
   5.03 (Service Unavailable; 503 in HTTP) according to the Max-Age
   (Retry-After in HTTP) option, and fall back to link-format when
   receiving 4.15 (Unsupported Content-Format; 415 in HTTP).

   An RD MAY make the information submitted to it available to further
   directories, if it can ensure that a loop does not form.  The
   protocol used between directories to ensure loop-free operation is
   outside the scope of this document.

4.1.  Finding a Resource Directory

   A (re-)starting device may want to find one or more RDs for discovery
   purposes.  Dependent on the operational conditions, one or more of
   the techniques below apply.

   The device may be pre-configured to exercise specific mechanisms for
   finding the RD:

   1.  It may be configured with a specific IP address for the RD.  That
       IP address may also be an anycast address, allowing the network
       to forward RD requests to an RD that is topologically close; each
       target network environment in which some of these preconfigured
       nodes are to be brought up is then configured with a route for
       this anycast address that leads to an appropriate RD.  (Instead
       of using an anycast address, a multicast address can also be
       preconfigured.  The RD servers then need to configure one of
       their interfaces with this multicast address.)






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   2.  It may be configured with a DNS name for the RD and use DNS to
       return the IP address of the RD; it can find a DNS server to
       perform the lookup using the usual mechanisms for finding DNS
       servers.

   3.  It may be configured to use a service discovery mechanism such as
       DNS-SD, as outlined in Section 4.1.2.

   For cases where the device is not specifically configured with a way
   to find an RD, the network may want to provide a suitable default.

   1.  If the address configuration of the network is performed via
       SLAAC, this is provided by the RDAO option Section 4.1.1.

   2.  If the address configuration of the network is performed via
       DHCP, this could be provided via a DHCP option (no such option is
       defined at the time of writing).

   Finally, if neither the device nor the network offers any specific
   configuration, the device may want to employ heuristics to find a
   suitable RD.

   The present specification does not fully define these heuristics, but
   suggests a number of candidates:

   1.  In a 6LoWPAN, just assume the Border Router (6LBR) can act as an
       RD (using the ABRO option to find that [RFC6775]).  Confirmation
       can be obtained by sending a Unicast to "coap://[6LBR]/.well-
       known/core?rt=core.rd*".

   2.  In a network that supports multicast well, discovering the RD
       using a multicast query for /.well-known/core as specified in
       CoRE Link Format [RFC6690]: Sending a Multicast GET to
       "coap://[MCD1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*".  RDs within the
       multicast scope will answer the query.

   When answering a multicast request directed at a link-local address,
   the RD may want to respond from a routable address; this makes it
   easier for registrants to use one of their own routable addresses for
   registration.











Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   As some of the RD addresses obtained by the methods listed here are
   just (more or less educated) guesses, endpoints MUST make use of any
   error messages to very strictly rate-limit requests to candidate IP
   addresses that don't work out.  For example, an ICMP Destination
   Unreachable message (and, in particular, the port unreachable code
   for this message) may indicate the lack of a CoAP server on the
   candidate host, or a CoAP error response code such as 4.05 "Method
   Not Allowed" may indicate unwillingness of a CoAP server to act as a
   directory server.

   The following RD discovery mechanisms are recommended:

   *  In managed networks with border routers that need stand-alone
      operation, the RDAO option is recommended (e.g. operational phase
      described in Section 3.6).

   *  In managed networks without border router (no Internet services
      available), the use of a preconfigured anycast address is
      recommended (e.g. installation phase described in Section 3.6).

   *  In networks managed using DNS-SD, the use of DNS-SD for discovery
      as described in Section 4.1.2 is recommended.

   The use of multicast discovery in mesh networks is NOT recommended.

4.1.1.  Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO)

   The Resource Directory Address Option (RDAO) using IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery (ND) carries information about the address of the RD.  This
   information is needed when endpoints cannot discover the RD with a
   link-local or realm-local scope multicast address, for instance
   because the endpoint and the RD are separated by a Border Router
   (6LBR).  In many circumstances the availability of DHCP cannot be
   guaranteed either during commissioning of the network.  The presence
   and the use of the RD is essential during commissioning.

   It is possible to send multiple RDAO options in one message,
   indicating as many RD addresses.

   The RDAO format is:











Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |  Length = 3   |       Valid Lifetime          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Reserved                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                          RD Address                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Fields:

   Type:                   TBD38

   Length:                 8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of
                           the option in units of 8 bytes.
                           Always 3.

   Valid Lifetime:         16-bit unsigned integer.  The length of
                           time in units of 60 seconds (relative to
                           the time the packet is received) that
                           this RD address is valid.
                           A value of all zero bits (0x0) indicates
                           that this RD address
                           is not valid anymore.

   Reserved:               This field is unused.  It MUST be
                           initialized to zero by the sender and
                           MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   RD Address:             IPv6 address of the RD.

                Figure 4: Resource Directory Address Option












Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


4.1.2.  Using DNS-SD to discover a Resource Directory

   An RD can advertise its presence in DNS-SD [RFC6763] using the
   service name "_core-rd._udp" (for CoAP), "_core-rd-dtls._udp" (for
   CoAP over DTLS), "_core-rd._tcp" (for CoAP over TCP) or "_core-rd-
   tls._tcp" (for CoAP over TLS) defined in this document.  (For the
   WebSocket transports of CoAP, no service is defined as DNS-SD is
   typically unavailable in environments where CoAP over WebSockets is
   used).

   The selection of the service indicates the protocol used, and the SRV
   record points the client to a host name and port to use as a starting
   point for the URI discovery steps of Section 4.3.

   This section is a simplified concrete application of the more generic
   mechanism specified in [I-D.ietf-core-rd-dns-sd].

4.2.  Payload Content Formats

   RDs implementing this specification MUST support the application/
   link-format content format (ct=40).

   RDs implementing this specification MAY support additional content
   formats.

   Any additional content format supported by an RD implementing this
   specification SHOULD be able to express all the information
   expressible in link-format.  It MAY be able to express information
   that is inexpressible in link-format, but those expressions SHOULD be
   avoided where possible.

4.3.  URI Discovery

   Before an endpoint can make use of an RD, it must first know the RD's
   address and port, and the URI path information for its REST APIs.
   This section defines discovery of the RD and its URIs using the well-
   known interface of the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] after having
   discovered a host as described in Section 4.1.

   Discovery of the RD registration URI path is performed by sending
   either a multicast or unicast GET request to "/.well-known/core" and
   including a Resource Type (rt) parameter [RFC6690] with the value
   "core.rd" in the query string.  Likewise, a Resource Type parameter
   value of "core.rd-lookup*" is used to discover the URIs for RD Lookup
   operations, core.rd* is used to discover all URI paths for RD
   operations.  Upon success, the response will contain a payload with a
   link format entry for each RD function discovered, indicating the URI
   of the RD function returned and the corresponding Resource Type.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   When performing multicast discovery, the multicast IP address used
   will depend on the scope required and the multicast capabilities of
   the network (see Section 9.5).

   An RD MAY provide hints about the content-formats it supports in the
   links it exposes or registers, using the "ct" target attribute, as
   shown in the example below.  Clients MAY use these hints to select
   alternate content-formats for interaction with the RD.

   HTTP does not support multicast and consequently only unicast
   discovery can be supported at the using the HTTP "/.well-known/core"
   resource.

   RDs implementing this specification MUST support query filtering for
   the rt parameter as defined in [RFC6690].

   While the link targets in this discovery step are often expressed in
   path-absolute form, this is not a requirement.  Clients of the RD
   SHOULD therefore accept URIs of all schemes they support, both as
   URIs and relative references, and not limit the set of discovered
   URIs to those hosted at the address used for URI discovery.

   The URI Discovery operation can yield multiple URIs of a given
   resource type.  The client of the RD can use any of the discovered
   addresses initially.

   The discovery request interface is specified as follows (this is
   exactly the Well-Known Interface of [RFC6690] Section 4, with the
   additional requirement that the server MUST support query filtering):

   Interaction:  EP and Client -> RD

   Method:  GET

   URI Template:  /.well-known/core{?rt}

   URI Template Variables:  rt :=  Resource Type.  SHOULD contain one of
         the values "core.rd", "core.rd-lookup*", "core.rd-lookup-res",
         "core.rd-lookup-ep", or "core.rd*"

   Accept:  absent, application/link-format or any other media type
      representing web links

   The following response is expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.05 "Content" or 200 "OK" with an application/link-format
      or other web link payload containing one or more matching entries
      for the RD resource.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The following example shows an endpoint discovering an RD using this
   interface, thus learning that the directory resource location, in
   this example, is /rd, and that the content-format delivered by the
   server hosting the resource is application/link-format (ct=40).  Note
   that it is up to the RD to choose its RD locations.

   Req: GET coap://[MCD1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </rd>;rt="core.rd";ct=40,
   </rd-lookup/ep>;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct=40,
   </rd-lookup/res>;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct=40

                    Figure 5: Example discovery exchange

   The following example shows the way of indicating that a client may
   request alternate content-formats.  The Content-Format code attribute
   "ct" MAY include a space-separated sequence of Content-Format codes
   as specified in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC7252], indicating that multiple
   content-formats are available.  The example below shows the required
   Content-Format 40 (application/link-format) indicated as well as a
   CBOR and JSON representation from [I-D.ietf-core-links-json] (which
   have no numeric values assigned yet, so they are shown as TBD64 and
   TBD504 as in that draft).  The RD resource locations /rd, and /rd-
   lookup are example values.  The server in this example also indicates
   that it is capable of providing observation on resource lookups.

   Req: GET coap://[MCD1]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd*

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </rd>;rt="core.rd";ct="40 65225",
   </rd-lookup/res>;rt="core.rd-lookup-res";ct="40 TBD64 TBD504";obs,
   </rd-lookup/ep>;rt="core.rd-lookup-ep";ct="40 TBD64 TBD504"

         Figure 6: Example discovery exchange indicating additional
                              content-formats

   From a management and maintenance perspective, it is necessary to
   identify the components that constitute the RD server.  The
   identification refers to information about for example client-server
   incompatibilities, supported features, required updates and other
   aspects.  The URI discovery address, a described in section 4 of
   [RFC6690] can be used to find the identification.

   It would typically be stored in an implementation information link
   (as described in [I-D.bormann-t2trg-rel-impl]):





Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: GET /.well-known/core?rel=impl-info

   Res: 2.05 Content
   <http://software.example.com/shiny-resource-directory/1.0beta1>;
       rel="impl-info"

     Figure 7: Example exchange of obtaining implementation information

   Note that depending on the particular server's architecture, such a
   link could be anchored at the RD server's root, at the discovery site
   (as in this example) or at individual RD components.  The latter is
   to be expected when different applications are run on the same
   server.

5.  Registration

   After discovering the location of an RD, a registrant-ep or CT MAY
   register the resources of the registrant-ep using the registration
   interface.  This interface accepts a POST from an endpoint containing
   the list of resources to be added to the directory as the message
   payload in the CoRE Link Format [RFC6690] or other representations of
   web links, along with query parameters indicating the name of the
   endpoint, and optionally the sector, lifetime and base URI of the
   registration.  It is expected that other specifications will define
   further parameters (see Section 9.3).  The RD then creates a new
   registration resource in the RD and returns its location.  The
   receiving endpoint MUST use that location when refreshing
   registrations using this interface.  Registration resources in the RD
   are kept active for the period indicated by the lifetime parameter.
   The creating endpoint is responsible for refreshing the registration
   resource within this period using either the registration or update
   interface.  The registration interface MUST be implemented to be
   idempotent, so that registering twice with the same endpoint
   parameters ep and d (sector) does not create multiple registration
   resources.

   The following rules apply for a registration request targeting a
   given (ep, d) value pair:

   *  When the (ep, d) value pair of the registration-request is
      different from any existing registration, a new registration is
      generated.

   *  When the (ep, d) value pair of the registration-request is equal
      to an existing registration, the content and parameters of the
      existing registration are replaced with the content of the
      registration request.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The posted link-format document can (and typically does) contain
   relative references both in its link targets and in its anchors, or
   contain empty anchors.  The RD server needs to resolve these
   references in order to faithfully represent them in lookups.  They
   are resolved against the base URI of the registration, which is
   provided either explicitly in the "base" parameter or constructed
   implicitly from the requester's URI as constructed from its network
   address and scheme.

   For media types to which Appendix C applies (i.e. documents in
   application/link-format), the RD only needs to accept representations
   in Limited Link Format as described there.  Its behavior with
   representations outside that subset is implementation defined.

   The registration request interface is specified as follows:

   Interaction:  EP -> RD

   Method:  POST

   URI Template:  {+rd}{?ep,d,lt,base,extra-attrs*}

   URI Template Variables:  rd :=  RD registration URI (mandatory).
         This is the location of the RD, as obtained from discovery.

                            ep :=  Endpoint name (mostly mandatory).
         The endpoint name is an identifier that MUST be unique within a
         sector.  As the endpoint name is a Unicode string, it is
         encoded in UTF-8 (and possibly pct-encoded) during variable
         expansion (see [RFC6570] Section 3.2.1).  The endpoint name
         MUST NOT contain any character in the inclusive ranges 0-31 or
         127-159.  The maximum length of this parameter is 63 UTF-8
         encoded bytes.  If the RD is configured to recognize the
         endpoint (e.g. based on its security context), the RD assigns
         an endpoint name based on a set of configuration parameter
         values.

                            d :=  Sector (optional).  The sector to
         which this endpoint belongs.  When this parameter is not
         present, the RD MAY associate the endpoint with a configured
         default sector or leave it empty.  The sector is encoded like
         the ep parameter, and is limited to 63 UTF-8 encoded bytes as
         well.  The endpoint name and sector name are not set when one
         or both are set in an accompanying authorization token.

                            lt :=  Lifetime (optional).  Lifetime of the





Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


         registration in seconds.  Range of 1-4294967295.  If no
         lifetime is included in the initial registration, a default
         value of 90000 (25 hours) SHOULD be assumed.

                            base :=  Base URI (optional).  This
         parameter sets the base URI of the registration, under which
         the relative links in the payload are to be interpreted.  The
         specified URI typically does not have a path component of its
         own, and MUST be suitable as a base URI to resolve any relative
         references given in the registration.  The parameter is
         therefore usually of the shape "scheme://authority" for HTTP
         and CoAP URIs.  The URI SHOULD NOT have a query or fragment
         component as any non-empty relative part in a reference would
         remove those parts from the resulting URI.

         In the absence of this parameter the scheme of the protocol,
         source address and source port of the registration request are
         assumed.  The Base URI is consecutively constructed by
         concatenating the used protocol's scheme with the characters
         "://", the requester's source address as an address literal and
         ":" followed by its port (if it was not the protocol's default
         one) in analogy to [RFC7252] Section 6.5.

         This parameter is mandatory when the directory is filled by a
         third party such as an commissioning tool.

         If the registrant-ep uses an ephemeral port to register with,
         it MUST include the base parameter in the registration to
         provide a valid network path.

         A registrant that can not be reached by potential lookup
         clients at the address it registers from (e.g. because it is
         behind some form of Network Address Translation (NAT)) MUST
         provide a reachable base address with its registration.

         If the Base URI contains a link-local IP literal, it MUST NOT
         contain a Zone Identifier, and MUST be local to the link on
         which the registration request is received.

         Endpoints that register with a base that contains a path
         component can not meaningfully use [RFC6690] Link Format due to
         its prevalence of the Origin concept in relative reference
         resolution.  Those applications should use different
         representations of links to which Appendix C is not applicable
         (e.g.  [I-D.hartke-t2trg-coral]).

                            extra-attrs :=  Additional registration




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


         attributes (optional).  The endpoint can pass any parameter
         registered at Section 9.3 to the directory.  If the RD is aware
         of the parameter's specified semantics, it processes it
         accordingly.  Otherwise, it MUST store the unknown key and its
         value(s) as an endpoint attribute for further lookup.

   Content-Format:  application/link-format or any other indicated media
      type representing web links

   The following response is expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.01 "Created" or 201 "Created".  The Location-Path option
      or Location header field MUST be included in the response.  This
      location MUST be a stable identifier generated by the RD as it is
      used for all subsequent operations on this registration resource.
      The registration resource location thus returned is for the
      purpose of updating the lifetime of the registration and for
      maintaining the content of the registered links, including
      updating and deleting links.

      A registration with an already registered ep and d value pair
      responds with the same success code and location as the original
      registration; the set of links registered with the endpoint is
      replaced with the links from the payload.

      The location MUST NOT have a query or fragment component, as that
      could conflict with query parameters during the Registration
      Update operation.  Therefore, the Location-Query option MUST NOT
      be present in a successful response.

   If the registration fails, including request timeouts, or if delays
   from Service Unavailable responses with Max-Age or Retry-After
   accumulate to exceed the registrant's configured timeouts, it SHOULD
   pick another registration URI from the "URI Discovery" step and if
   there is only one or the list is exhausted, pick other choices from
   the "Finding a Resource Directory" step.  Care has to be taken to
   consider the freshness of results obtained earlier, e.g. of the
   result of a "/.well-known/core" response, the lifetime of an RDAO
   option and of DNS responses.  Any rate limits and persistent errors
   from the "Finding a Resource Directory" step must be considered for
   the whole registration time, not only for a single operation.

   The following example shows a registrant-ep with the name "node1"
   registering two resources to an RD using this interface.  The
   location "/rd" is an example RD location discovered in a request
   similar to Figure 5.





Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd?ep=node1
   Content-Format: 40
   Payload:
   </sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/temp>;
     anchor="/sensors/temp";rel="describedby"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/4521

                   Figure 8: Example registration payload

   An RD may optionally support HTTP.  Here is an example of almost the
   same registration operation above, when done using HTTP.

   Req:
   POST /rd?ep=node1&base=http://[2001:db8:1::1] HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: application/link-format

   </sensors/temp>;ct=41;rt="temperature-c";if="sensor",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/temp>;
     anchor="/sensors/temp";rel="describedby"

   Res:
   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Location: /rd/4521

       Figure 9: Example registration payload as expressed using HTTP

5.1.  Simple Registration

   Not all endpoints hosting resources are expected to know how to
   upload links to an RD as described in Section 5.  Instead, simple
   endpoints can implement the Simple Registration approach described in
   this section.  An RD implementing this specification MUST implement
   Simple Registration.  However, there may be security reasons why this
   form of directory discovery would be disabled.

   This approach requires that the registrant-ep makes available the
   hosted resources that it wants to be discovered, as links on its
   "/.well-known/core" interface as specified in [RFC6690].  The links
   in that document are subject to the same limitations as the payload
   of a registration (with respect to Appendix C).

   *  The registrant-ep finds one or more addresses of the directory
      server as described in Section 4.1.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  The registrant-ep sends (and regularly refreshes with) a POST
      request to the "/.well-known/core" URI of the directory server of
      choice.  The body of the POST request is empty, and triggers the
      resource directory server to perform GET requests at the
      requesting registrant-ep's /.well-known/core to obtain the link-
      format payload to register.

      The registrant-ep includes the same registration parameters in the
      POST request as it would per Section 5.  The registration base URI
      of the registration is taken from the registrant-ep's network
      address (as is default with regular registrations).

      Example request from registrant-EP to RD (unanswered until the
      next step):

   Req: POST /.well-known/core?lt=6000&ep=node1
   (No payload)

      Figure 10: First half example exchange of a simple registration

   *  The RD queries the registrant-ep's discovery resource to determine
      the success of the operation.  It SHOULD keep a cache of the
      discovery resource and not query it again as long as it is fresh.

      Example request from the RD to the registrant-EP:

   Req: GET /.well-known/core
   Accept: 40

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Content-Format: 40
   Payload:
   </sen/temp>

     Figure 11: Example exchange of the RD querying the simple endpoint

   With this response, the RD would answer the previous step's request:

   Res: 2.04 Changed

      Figure 12: Second half example exchange of a simple registration

   The sequence of fetching the registration content before sending a
   successful response was chosen to make responses reliable, and the
   caching item was chosen to still allow very constrained registrants.
   Registrants MUST be able to serve a GET request to "/.well-known/
   core" after having requested registration.  Constrained devices MAY
   regard the initial request as temporarily failed when they need RAM



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   occupied by their own request to serve the RD's GET, and retry later
   when the RD already has a cached representation of their discovery
   resources.  Then, the RD can reply immediately and the registrant can
   receive the response.

   The simple registration request interface is specified as follows:

   Interaction:  EP -> RD

   Method:  POST

   URI Template:  /.well-known/core{?ep,d,lt,extra-attrs*}

   URI Template Variables are as they are for registration in Section 5.
   The base attribute is not accepted to keep the registration interface
   simple; that rules out registration over CoAP-over-TCP or HTTP that
   would need to specify one.

   The following response is expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.04 "Changed".

   For the second interaction triggered by the above, the registrant-ep
   takes the role of server and the RD the role of client.  (Note that
   this is exactly the Well-Known Interface of [RFC6690] Section 4):

   Interaction:  RD -> EP

   Method:  GET

   URI Template:  /.well-known/core

   The following response is expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.05 "Content".

   When the RD is in a position to successfully execute this second
   interaction and other network participants that can reach it are not,
   it SHOULD verify that the apparent registrant-ep intends to register
   with the given registration parameters before revealing the obtained
   discovery information to lookup clients.  An easy way to do that is
   to verify the simple registration request's sender address using the
   Echo option as described in [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]
   Section 2.4.







Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The RD MUST delete registrations created by simple registration after
   the expiration of their lifetime.  Additional operations on the
   registration resource cannot be executed because no registration
   location is returned.

5.2.  Third-party registration

   For some applications, even Simple Registration may be too taxing for
   some very constrained devices, in particular if the security
   requirements become too onerous.

   In a controlled environment (e.g. building control), the RD can be
   filled by a third party device, called a Commissioning Tool (CT).
   The commissioning tool can fill the RD from a database or other
   means.  For that purpose scheme, IP address and port of the URI of
   the registered device is the value of the "base" parameter of the
   registration described in Section 5.

   It should be noted that the value of the "base" parameter applies to
   all the links of the registration and has consequences for the anchor
   value of the individual links as exemplified in Appendix B.  An
   eventual (currently non-existing) "base" attribute of the link is not
   affected by the value of "base" parameter in the registration.

5.3.  Operations on the Registration Resource

   This section describes how the registering endpoint can maintain the
   registrations that it created.  The registering endpoint can be the
   registrant-ep or the CT.  The registrations are resources of the RD.

   An endpoint should not use this interface for registrations that it
   did not create.  This is usually enforced by security policies, which
   in general require equivalent credentials for creation of and
   operations on a registration.

   After the initial registration, the registering endpoint retains the
   returned location of the Registration Resource for further
   operations, including refreshing the registration in order to extend
   the lifetime and "keep-alive" the registration.  When the lifetime of
   the registration has expired, the RD SHOULD NOT respond to discovery
   queries concerning this endpoint.  The RD SHOULD continue to provide
   access to the Registration Resource after a registration time-out
   occurs in order to enable the registering endpoint to eventually
   refresh the registration.  The RD MAY eventually remove the
   registration resource for the purpose of garbage collection.  If the
   Registration Resource is removed, the corresponding endpoint will
   need to be re-registered.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The Registration Resource may also be used cancel the registration
   using DELETE, and to perform further operations beyond the scope of
   this specification.

   These operations are described below.

5.3.1.  Registration Update

   The update interface is used by the registering endpoint to refresh
   or update its registration with an RD.  To use the interface, the
   registering endpoint sends a POST request to the registration
   resource returned by the initial registration operation.

   An update MAY update the lifetime or the base URI registration
   parameters "lt", "base" as in Section 5.  Parameters that are not
   being changed SHOULD NOT be included in an update.  Adding parameters
   that have not changed increases the size of the message but does not
   have any other implications.  Parameters MUST be included as query
   parameters in an update operation as in Section 5.

   A registration update resets the timeout of the registration to the
   (possibly updated) lifetime of the registration, independent of
   whether a "lt" parameter was given.

   If the base URI of the registration is changed in an update, relative
   references submitted in the original registration or later updates
   are resolved anew against the new base.

   The registration update operation only describes the use of POST with
   an empty payload.  Future standards might describe the semantics of
   using content formats and payloads with the POST method to update the
   links of a registration (see Section 5.3.3).

   The update registration request interface is specified as follows:

   Interaction:  EP -> RD

   Method:  POST

   URI Template:  {+location}{?lt,base,extra-attrs*}

   URI Template Variables:  location :=  This is the Location returned
         by the RD as a result of a successful earlier registration.

                            lt :=  Lifetime (optional).  Lifetime of the






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


         registration in seconds.  Range of 1-4294967295.  If no
         lifetime is included, the previous last lifetime set on a
         previous update or the original registration (falling back to
         90000) SHOULD be used.

                            base :=  Base URI (optional).  This
         parameter updates the Base URI established in the original
         registration to a new value.  If the parameter is set in an
         update, it is stored by the RD as the new Base URI under which
         to interpret the relative links present in the payload of the
         original registration, following the same restrictions as in
         the registration.  If the parameter is not set in the request
         but was set before, the previous Base URI value is kept
         unmodified.  If the parameter is not set in the request and was
         not set before either, the source address and source port of
         the update request are stored as the Base URI.

                            extra-attrs :=  Additional registration
         attributes (optional).  As with the registration, the RD
         processes them if it knows their semantics.  Otherwise, unknown
         attributes are stored as endpoint attributes, overriding any
         previously stored endpoint attributes of the same key.

         Note that this default behavior does not allow removing an
         endpoint attribute in an update.  For attributes whose
         functionality depends on the endpoints' ability to remove them
         in an update, it can make sense to define a value whose
         presence is equivalent to the absence of a value.  As an
         alternative, an extension can define different updating rules
         for their attributes.  That necessitates either discovery of
         whether the RD is aware of that extension, or tolerating the
         default behavior.

   Content-Format:  none (no payload)

   The following responses are expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.04 "Changed" or 204 "No Content" if the update was
      successfully processed.

   Failure:  4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found".  Registration does not
      exist (e.g. may have been removed).

   If the registration fails in any way, including "Not Found" and
   request timeouts, or if the time indicated in a Service Unavailable
   Max-Age/Retry-After exceeds the remaining lifetime, the registering
   endpoint SHOULD attempt registration again.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The following example shows how the registering endpoint updates its
   registration resource at an RD using this interface with the example
   location value: /rd/4521.

   Req: POST /rd/4521

   Res: 2.04 Changed

                Figure 13: Example update of a registration

   The following example shows the registering endpoint updating its
   registration resource at an RD using this interface with the example
   location value: /rd/4521.  The initial registration by the
   registering endpoint set the following values:

   *  endpoint name (ep)=endpoint1

   *  lifetime (lt)=500

   *  Base URI (base)=coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683

   *  payload of Figure 8

   The initial state of the RD is reflected in the following request:

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?ep=endpoint1

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Payload:
   <coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683/sensors/temp>;ct=41;
       rt="temperature-c";if="sensor";
       anchor="coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683/",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/temp>;
       anchor="coap://local-proxy-old.example.com:5683/sensors/temp";
       rel="describedby"

       Figure 14: Example lookup before a change to the base address

   The following example shows the registering endpoint changing the
   Base URI to "coaps://new.example.com:5684":

   Req: POST /rd/4521?base=coaps://new.example.com:5684

   Res: 2.04 Changed

    Figure 15: Example registration update that changes the base address

   The consecutive query returns:



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?ep=endpoint1

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Payload:
   <coap://new.example.com:5684/sensors/temp>;ct=41;
       rt="temperature-c";if="sensor";
       anchor="coap://new.example.com:5684/",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/temp>;
       anchor="coap://new.example.com:5684/sensors/temp";
       rel="describedby"

        Figure 16: Example lookup after a change to the base address

5.3.2.  Registration Removal

   Although RD registrations have soft state and will eventually timeout
   after their lifetime, the registering endpoint SHOULD explicitly
   remove an entry from the RD if it knows it will no longer be
   available (for example on shut-down).  This is accomplished using a
   removal interface on the RD by performing a DELETE on the endpoint
   resource.

   The removal request interface is specified as follows:

   Interaction:  EP -> RD

   Method:  DELETE

   URI Template:  {+location}

   URI Template Variables:  location :=  This is the Location returned
         by the RD as a result of a successful earlier registration.

   The following responses are expected on this interface:

   Success:  2.02 "Deleted" or 204 "No Content" upon successful deletion

   Failure:  4.04 "Not Found" or 404 "Not Found".  Registration does not
      exist (e.g. may already have been removed).

   The following examples shows successful removal of the endpoint from
   the RD with example location value /rd/4521.

   Req: DELETE /rd/4521

   Res: 2.02 Deleted

                Figure 17: Example of a registration removal



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


5.3.3.  Further operations

   Additional operations on the registration can be specified in future
   documents, for example:

   *  Send iPATCH (or PATCH) updates ([RFC8132]) to add, remove or
      change the links of a registration.

   *  Use GET to read the currently stored set of links in a
      registration resource.

   Those operations are out of scope of this document, and will require
   media types suitable for modifying sets of links.

6.  RD Lookup

   To discover the resources registered with the RD, a lookup interface
   must be provided.  This lookup interface is defined as a default, and
   it is assumed that RDs may also support lookups to return resource
   descriptions in alternative formats (e.g.  JSON or CBOR link format
   [I-D.ietf-core-links-json]) or using more advanced interfaces (e.g.
   supporting context or semantic based lookup) on different resources
   that are discovered independently.

   RD Lookup allows lookups for endpoints and resources using attributes
   defined in this document and for use with the CoRE Link Format.  The
   result of a lookup request is the list of links (if any)
   corresponding to the type of lookup.  Thus, an endpoint lookup MUST
   return a list of endpoints and a resource lookup MUST return a list
   of links to resources.

   The lookup type is selected by a URI endpoint, which is indicated by
   a Resource Type as per Table 1 below:

             +=============+====================+===========+
             | Lookup Type | Resource Type      | Mandatory |
             +=============+====================+===========+
             | Resource    | core.rd-lookup-res | Mandatory |
             +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
             | Endpoint    | core.rd-lookup-ep  | Mandatory |
             +-------------+--------------------+-----------+

                          Table 1: Lookup Types








Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


6.1.  Resource lookup

   Resource lookup results in links that are semantically equivalent to
   the links submitted to the RD.  The links and link parameters
   returned by the lookup are equal to the submitted ones, except that
   the target and anchor references are fully resolved.

   Links that did not have an anchor attribute are therefore returned
   with the base URI of the registration as the anchor.  Links of which
   href or anchor was submitted as a (full) URI are returned with these
   attributes unmodified.

   Above rules allow the client to interpret the response as links
   without any further knowledge of the storage conventions of the RD.
   The RD MAY replace the registration base URIs with a configured
   intermediate proxy, e.g. in the case of an HTTP lookup interface for
   CoAP endpoints.

   If the base URI of a registration contains a link-local address, the
   RD MUST NOT show its links unless the lookup was made from the same
   link.  The RD MUST NOT include zone identifiers in the resolved URIs.

6.2.  Lookup filtering

   Using the Accept Option, the requester can control whether the
   returned list is returned in CoRE Link Format ("application/link-
   format", default) or in alternate content-formats (e.g. from
   [I-D.ietf-core-links-json]).

   The page and count parameters are used to obtain lookup results in
   specified increments using pagination, where count specifies how many
   links to return and page specifies which subset of links organized in
   sequential pages, each containing 'count' links, starting with link
   zero and page zero.  Thus, specifying count of 10 and page of 0 will
   return the first 10 links in the result set (links 0-9).  Count = 10
   and page = 1 will return the next 'page' containing links 10-19, and
   so on.

   Multiple search criteria MAY be included in a lookup.  All included
   criteria MUST match for a link to be returned.  The RD MUST support
   matching with multiple search criteria.










Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   A link matches a search criterion if it has an attribute of the same
   name and the same value, allowing for a trailing "*" wildcard
   operator as in Section 4.1 of [RFC6690].  Attributes that are defined
   as "link-type" match if the search value matches any of their values
   (see Section 4.1 of [RFC6690]; e.g. "?if=core.s" matches ";if="abc
   core.s";").  A resource link also matches a search criterion if its
   endpoint would match the criterion, and vice versa, an endpoint link
   matches a search criterion if any of its resource links matches it.

   Note that "href" is a valid search criterion and matches target
   references.  Like all search criteria, on a resource lookup it can
   match the target reference of the resource link itself, but also the
   registration resource of the endpoint that registered it.  Queries
   for resource link targets MUST be in URI form (i.e. not relative
   references) and are matched against a resolved link target.  Queries
   for endpoints SHOULD be expressed in path-absolute form if possible
   and MUST be expressed in URI form otherwise; the RD SHOULD recognize
   either.  The "anchor" attribute is usable for resource lookups, and,
   if queried, MUST be for in URI form as well.

   Endpoints that are interested in a lookup result repeatedly or
   continuously can use mechanisms like ETag caching, resource
   observation ([RFC7641]), or any future mechanism that might allow
   more efficient observations of collections.  These are advertised,
   detected and used according to their own specifications and can be
   used with the lookup interface as with any other resource.

   When resource observation is used, every time the set of matching
   links changes, or the content of a matching link changes, the RD
   sends a notification with the matching link set.  The notification
   contains the successful current response to the given request,
   especially with respect to representing zero matching links (see
   "Success" item below).

   The lookup interface is specified as follows:

   Interaction:  Client -> RD

   Method:  GET

   URI Template:  {+type-lookup-location}{?page,count,search*}

   URI Template Variables:  type-lookup-location :=  RD Lookup URI for a
         given lookup type (mandatory).  The address is discovered as
         described in Section 4.3.

                            search :=  Search criteria for limiting the
         number of results (optional).



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


         The search criteria are an associative array, expressed in a
         form-style query as per the URI template (see [RFC6570]
         Sections 2.4.2 and 3.2.8)

                            page :=  Page (optional).  Parameter cannot
         be used without the count parameter.  Results are returned from
         result set in pages that contain 'count' links starting from
         index (page * count).  Page numbering starts with zero.

                            count :=  Count (optional).  Number of
         results is limited to this parameter value.  If the page
         parameter is also present, the response MUST only include
         'count' links starting with the (page * count) link in the
         result set from the query.  If the count parameter is not
         present, then the response MUST return all matching links in
         the result set.  Link numbering starts with zero.

   Accept:  absent, application/link-format or any other indicated media
      type representing web links

   The following responses codes are defined for this interface:

   Success:  2.05 "Content" or 200 "OK" with an "application/link-
      format" or other web link payload containing matching entries for
      the lookup.  The payload can contain zero links (which is an empty
      payload in [RFC6690] link format, but could also be "[]" in JSON
      based formats), indicating that no entities matched the request.

6.3.  Resource lookup examples

   The examples in this section assume the existence of CoAP hosts with
   a default CoAP port 61616.  HTTP hosts are possible and do not change
   the nature of the examples.

   The following example shows a client performing a resource lookup
   with the example resource look-up locations discovered in Figure 5:

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature

   Res: 2.05 Content
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/temp>;rt="temperature";
              anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616"

                    Figure 18: Example a resource lookup

   A client that wants to be notified of new resources as they show up
   can use observation:




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?rt=light
   Observe: 0

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Observe: 23
   Payload: empty

   (at a later point in time)

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Observe: 24
   Payload:
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::124]/west>;rt="light";
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::124]/south>;rt="light";
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::124]/east>;rt="light";
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::124]"

              Figure 19: Example an observing resource lookup

   The following example shows a client performing a paginated resource
   lookup




























Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?page=0&count=5

   Res: 2.05 Content
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/0>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/1>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/2>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/3>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/4>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616"

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?page=1&count=5

   Res: 2.05 Content
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/5>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/6>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/7>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/8>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616",
   <coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616/res/9>;rt=sensor;ct=60;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:3::123]:61616"

              Figure 20: Examples of paginated resource lookup

   The following example shows a client performing a lookup of all
   resources of all endpoints of a given endpoint type.  It assumes that
   two endpoints (with endpoint names "sensor1" and "sensor2") have
   previously registered with their respective addresses
   "coap://sensor1.example.com" and "coap://sensor2.example.com", and
   posted the very payload of the 6th request of section 5 of [RFC6690].

   It demonstrates how absolute link targets stay unmodified, while
   relative ones are resolved:












Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?et=oic.d.sensor

   <coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors>;ct=40;title="Sensor Index";
       anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com",
   <coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/temp>;rt="temperature-c";
       if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com",
   <coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/light>;rt="light-lux";
       if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/t123>;rel="describedby";
       anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/temp",
   <coap://sensor1.example.com/t>;rel="alternate";
       anchor="coap://sensor1.example.com/sensors/temp",
   <coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors>;ct=40;title="Sensor Index";
       anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com",
   <coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/temp>;rt="temperature-c";
       if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com",
   <coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/light>;rt="light-lux";
       if="sensor"; anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com",
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/t123>;rel="describedby";
       anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/temp",
   <coap://sensor2.example.com/t>;rel="alternate";
       anchor="coap://sensor2.example.com/sensors/temp"

       Figure 21: Example of resource lookup from multiple endpoints

6.4.  Endpoint lookup

   The endpoint lookup returns registration resources which can only be
   manipulated by the registering endpoint.

   Endpoint registration resources are annotated with their endpoint
   names (ep), sectors (d, if present) and registration base URI (base;
   reports the registrant-ep's address if no explicit base was given) as
   well as a constant resource type (rt="core.rd-ep"); the lifetime (lt)
   is not reported.  Additional endpoint attributes are added as target
   attributes to their endpoint link unless their specification says
   otherwise.

   Links to endpoints SHOULD be presented in path-absolute form or, if
   required, as (full) URIs.  (This avoids the RFC6690 ambiguities.)

   Base addresses that contain link-local addresses MUST NOT include
   zone identifiers, and such registrations MUST NOT be shown unless the
   lookup was made from the same link from which the registration was
   made.






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   While Endpoint Lookup does expose the registration resources, the RD
   does not need to make them accessible to clients.  Clients SHOULD NOT
   attempt to dereference or manipulate them.

   An RD can report endpoints in lookup that are not hosted at the same
   address.  Lookup clients MUST be prepared to see arbitrary URIs as
   registration resources in the results and treat them as opaque
   identifiers; the precise semantics of such links are left to future
   specifications.

   The following example shows a client performing an endpoint type (et)
   lookup with the value oic.d.sensor (which is currently a registered
   rt value):

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?et=oic.d.sensor

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </rd/1234>;base="coap://[2001:db8:3::127]:61616";ep="node5";
   et="oic.d.sensor";ct="40";rt="core.rd-ep",
   </rd/4521>;base="coap://[2001:db8:3::129]:61616";ep="node7";
   et="oic.d.sensor";ct="40";d="floor-3";rt="core.rd-ep"

                   Figure 22: Examples of endpoint lookup

7.  Security policies

   The security policies that are applicable to an RD strongly depend on
   the application, and are not set out normatively here.

   This section provides a list of aspects that applications should
   consider when describing their use of the RD, without claiming to
   cover all cases.  It is using terminology of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], in which the RD acts as the Resource
   Server (RS), and both registrant-eps and lookup clients act as
   Clients (C) with support from an Authorization Server (AS), without
   the intention of ruling out other (e.g. certificate / public-key
   infrastructure (PKI) based) schemes.

   Any, all or none of the below can apply to an application.  Which are
   relevant depends on its protection objectives.











Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


7.1.  Endpoint name

   Whenever an RD needs to provide trustworthy results to clients doing
   endpoint lookup, or resource lookup with filtering on the endpoint
   name, the RD must ensure that the registrant is authorized to use the
   given endpoint name.  This applies both to registration and later to
   operations on the registration resource.  It is immaterial there
   whether the client is the registrant-ep itself or a CT is doing the
   registration: The RD can not tell the difference, and CTs may use
   authorization credentials authorizing only operations on that
   particular endpoint name, or a wider range of endpoint names.

   When certificates are used as authorization credentials, the
   sector(s) and endpoint name(s) can be transported in the subject.  In
   an ACE context, those are typically transported in a scope claim.

7.1.1.  Random endpoint names

   Conversely, in applications where the RD does not check the endpoint
   name, the authorized registering endpoint can generate a random
   number (or string) that identifies the endpoint.  The RD should then
   remember unique properties of the registrant, associate them with the
   registration for as long as its registration resource is active
   (which may be longer than the registration's lifetime), and require
   the same properties for operations on the registration resource.

   Registrants that are prepared to pick a different identifier when
   their initial attempt at registration is unauthorized should pick an
   identifier at least twice as long as the expected number of
   registrants; registrants without such a recovery options should pick
   significantly longer endpoint names (e.g. using UUID URNs [RFC4122]).

7.2.  Entered resources

   When lookup clients expect that certain types of links can only
   originate from certain endpoints, then the RD needs to apply
   filtering to the links an endpoint may register.

   For example, if clients use an RD to find a server that provides
   firmware updates, then any registrant that wants to register (or
   update) links to firmware sources will need to provide suitable
   credentials to do so, independently of its endpoint name.









Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Note that the impact of having undesirable links in the RD depends on
   the application: if the client requires the firmware server to
   present credentials as a firmware server, a fraudulent link's impact
   is limited to the client revealing its intention to obtain updates
   and slowing down the client until it finds a legitimate firmware
   server; if the client accepts any credentials from the server as long
   as they fit the provided URI, the impact is larger.

   An RD may also require that only links are registered on whose anchor
   (or even target) the RD recognizes as authoritative of.  One way to
   do this is to demand that the registrant present the same credentials
   as a client that they'd need to present if contacted as a server at
   the resources' URI, which may include using the address and port that
   are part of the URI.  Such a restriction places severe practical
   limitations on the links that can be registered.

   As above, the impact of undesirable links depends on the extent to
   which the lookup client relies on the RD.  To avoid the limitations,
   RD applications should consider prescribe that lookup clients only
   use the discovered information as hints, and describe which pieces of
   information need to be verified with the server because they impact
   the application's security.

7.3.  Link confidentiality

   When registrants publish information in the RD that is not available
   to any client that would query the registrant's .well-known/core
   interface, or when lookups to that interface are subject so stricter
   firewalling than lookups to the RD, the RD may need to limit which
   lookup clients may access the information.

   In those situations, the registrant needs to be careful to
   authenticate the RD as well.  The registrant needs to know in advance
   which AS, audience and scope values indicate an RD it may trust for
   this purpose, and can not rely on the RD to provide AS address and
   token details.  (In contrast, in the other scenarios it may try to
   register, and follow the pointers the RD gives it as to which
   credentials it needs to provide in order to perform its
   registration).

7.4.  Segmentation

   Within a single RD, different security policies can apply.








Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   One example of this are multi-tenant deployments separated by the
   sector (d) parameter.  Some sectors might apply limitations on the
   endpoint names available, while others use a random identifier
   approach to endpoint names and place limits on the entered links
   based on their attributes instead.

   Care must be taken in such setups to determine the applicable access
   control measures to each operation.  One easy way to do that is to
   mandate the use of the sector parameter on all operations, as no
   credentials are suitable for operations across sector borders anyway.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations as described in Section 5 of [RFC8288]
   and Section 6 of [RFC6690] apply.  The "/.well-known/core" resource
   may be protected e.g. using DTLS when hosted on a CoAP server as
   described in [RFC7252].  DTLS or TLS based security SHOULD be used on
   all resource directory interfaces defined in this document.

8.1.  Endpoint Identification and Authentication

   An Endpoint (name, sector) pair is unique within the set of endpoints
   registered by the RD.  An Endpoint MUST NOT be identified by its
   protocol, port or IP address as these may change over the lifetime of
   an Endpoint.

   Every operation performed by an Endpoint on an RD SHOULD be mutually
   authenticated using Pre-Shared Key, Raw Public Key or Certificate
   based security.

   Consider the following threat: two devices A and B are registered at
   a single server.  Both devices have unique, per-device credentials
   for use with DTLS to make sure that only parties with authorization
   to access A or B can do so.

   Now, imagine that a malicious device A wants to sabotage the device
   B.  It uses its credentials during the DTLS exchange.  Then, it
   specifies the endpoint name of device B as the name of its own
   endpoint in device A.  If the server does not check whether the
   identifier provided in the DTLS handshake matches the identifier used
   at the CoAP layer then it may be inclined to use the endpoint name
   for looking up what information to provision to the malicious device.

   Endpoint authentication needs to be checked independently of whether
   there are configured requirements on the credentials for a given
   endpoint name (Section 7.1) or whether arbitrary names are accepted
   (Section 7.1.1).




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Simple registration could be used to circumvent address based access
   control: An attacker would send a simple registration request with
   the victim's address as source address, and later look up the
   victim's .well-known/core content in the RD.  Mitigation for this is
   recommended in Section 5.1.

8.2.  Access Control

   Access control SHOULD be performed separately for the RD registration
   and Lookup API paths, as different endpoints may be authorized to
   register with an RD from those authorized to lookup endpoints from
   the RD.  Such access control SHOULD be performed in as fine-grained a
   level as possible.  For example access control for lookups could be
   performed either at the sector, endpoint or resource level.

8.3.  Denial of Service Attacks

   Services that run over UDP unprotected are vulnerable to unknowingly
   become part of a DDoS attack as UDP does not require return
   routability check.  Therefore, an attacker can easily spoof the
   source IP of the target entity and send requests to such a service
   which would then respond to the target entity.  This can be used for
   large-scale DDoS attacks on the target.  Especially, if the service
   returns a response that is order of magnitudes larger than the
   request, the situation becomes even worse as now the attack can be
   amplified.  DNS servers have been widely used for DDoS amplification
   attacks.  There is also a danger that NTP Servers could become
   implicated in denial-of-service (DoS) attacks since they run on
   unprotected UDP, there is no return routability check, and they can
   have a large amplification factor.  The responses from the NTP server
   were found to be 19 times larger than the request.  An RD which
   responds to wild-card lookups is potentially vulnerable if run with
   CoAP over UDP.  Since there is no return routability check and the
   responses can be significantly larger than requests, RDs can
   unknowingly become part of a DDoS amplification attack.

   [RFC7252] describes this at length in its Section 11.3, including
   some mitigation by using small block sizes in responses.  The
   upcoming [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag] updates that by describing
   a source address verification mechanism using the Echo option.

   [ If this document is published together with or after I-D.ietf-core-
   echo-request-tag, the above paragraph is replaced with the following:

   [RFC7252] describes this at length in its Section 11.3, and
   [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag] (which updates the former)
   recommends using the Echo option to verify the request's source
   address.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   ]

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Resource Types

   IANA is asked to enter the following values into the Resource Type
   (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values sub-registry of the Constrained
   Restful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry defined in [RFC6690]:

    +====================+=============================+=============+
    | Value              | Description                 | Reference   |
    +====================+=============================+=============+
    | core.rd            | Directory resource of an RD | RFCTHIS     |
    |                    |                             | Section 4.3 |
    +--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
    | core.rd-lookup-res | Resource lookup of an RD    | RFCTHIS     |
    |                    |                             | Section 4.3 |
    +--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
    | core.rd-lookup-ep  | Endpoint lookup of an RD    | RFCTHIS     |
    |                    |                             | Section 4.3 |
    +--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
    | core.rd-ep         | Endpoint resource of an RD  | RFCTHIS     |
    |                    |                             | Section 6   |
    +--------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+

                                 Table 2

9.2.  IPv6 ND Resource Directory Address Option

   This document registers one new ND option type under the sub-registry
   "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats":

   *  Resource Directory Address Option (TBD38)

   [ The RFC editor is asked to replace TBD38 with the assigned number
   in the document; the value 38 is suggested. ]

9.3.  RD Parameter Registry

   This specification defines a new sub-registry for registration and
   lookup parameters called "RD Parameters" under "CoRE Parameters".
   Although this specification defines a basic set of parameters, it is
   expected that other standards that make use of this interface will
   define new ones.

   Each entry in the registry must include




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  the human readable name of the parameter,

   *  the short name as used in query parameters or target attributes,

   *  indication of whether it can be passed as a query parameter at
      registration of endpoints, as a query parameter in lookups, or be
      expressed as a target attribute,

   *  syntax and validity requirements if any,

   *  a description,

   *  and a link to reference documentation.

   The query parameter MUST be both a valid URI query key [RFC3986] and
   a token as used in [RFC8288].

   The description must give details on whether the parameter can be
   updated, and how it is to be processed in lookups.

   The mechanisms around new RD parameters should be designed in such a
   way that they tolerate RD implementations that are unaware of the
   parameter and expose any parameter passed at registration or updates
   on in endpoint lookups.  (For example, if a parameter used at
   registration were to be confidential, the registering endpoint should
   be instructed to only set that parameter if the RD advertises support
   for keeping it confidential at the discovery step.)

   Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:






















Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


    +==============+=======+==============+=====+=====================+
    | Full name    | Short | Validity     | Use | Description         |
    +==============+=======+==============+=====+=====================+
    | Endpoint     | ep    | Unicode*     | RLA | Name of the         |
    | Name         |       |              |     | endpoint            |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Lifetime     | lt    | 1-4294967295 | R   | Lifetime of the     |
    |              |       |              |     | registration in     |
    |              |       |              |     | seconds             |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Sector       | d     | Unicode*     | RLA | Sector to which     |
    |              |       |              |     | this endpoint       |
    |              |       |              |     | belongs             |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Registration | base  | URI          | RLA | The scheme, address |
    | Base URI     |       |              |     | and port and path   |
    |              |       |              |     | at which this       |
    |              |       |              |     | server is available |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Page         | page  | Integer      | L   | Used for pagination |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Count        | count | Integer      | L   | Used for pagination |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+
    | Endpoint     | et    | Section      | RLA | Semantic type of    |
    | Type         |       | 9.3.1        |     | the endpoint (see   |
    |              |       |              |     | Section 9.4)        |
    +--------------+-------+--------------+-----+---------------------+

                           Table 3: RD Parameters

   (Short: Short name used in query parameters or target attributes.
   Validity: Unicode* = 63 Bytes of UTF-8 encoded Unicode, with no
   control characters as per Section 5.  Use: R = used at registration,
   L = used at lookup, A = expressed in target attribute

   The descriptions for the options defined in this document are only
   summarized here.  To which registrations they apply and when they are
   to be shown is described in the respective sections of this document.
   All their reference documentation entries point to this document.

   The IANA policy for future additions to the sub-registry is "Expert
   Review" as described in [RFC8126].  The evaluation should consider
   formal criteria, duplication of functionality (Is the new entry
   redundant with an existing one?), topical suitability (E.g. is the
   described property actually a property of the endpoint and not a
   property of a particular resource, in which case it should go into
   the payload of the registration and need not be registered?), and the
   potential for conflict with commonly used target attributes (For



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   example, "if" could be used as a parameter for conditional
   registration if it were not to be used in lookup or attributes, but
   would make a bad parameter for lookup, because a resource lookup with
   an "if" query parameter could ambiguously filter by the registered
   endpoint property or the [RFC6690] target attribute).

9.3.1.  Full description of the "Endpoint Type" Registration Parameter

   An endpoint registering at an RD can describe itself with endpoint
   types, similar to how resources are described with Resource Types in
   [RFC6690].  An endpoint type is expressed as a string, which can be
   either a URI or one of the values defined in the Endpoint Type sub-
   registry.  Endpoint types can be passed in the "et" query parameter
   as part of extra-attrs at the Registration step, are shown on
   endpoint lookups using the "et" target attribute, and can be filtered
   for using "et" as a search criterion in resource and endpoint lookup.
   Multiple endpoint types are given as separate query parameters or
   link attributes.

   Note that Endpoint Type differs from Resource Type in that it uses
   multiple attributes rather than space separated values.  As a result,
   RDs implementing this specification automatically support correct
   filtering in the lookup interfaces from the rules for unknown
   endpoint attributes.

9.4.  "Endpoint Type" (et=) RD Parameter values

   This specification establishes a new sub-registry under "CoRE
   Parameters" called '"Endpoint Type" (et=) RD Parameter values'.  The
   registry properties (required policy, requirements, template) are
   identical to those of the Resource Type parameters in [RFC6690], in
   short:

   The review policy is IETF Review for values starting with "core", and
   Specification Required for others.

   The requirements to be enforced are:

   *  The values MUST be related to the purpose described in
      Section 9.3.1.

   *  The registered values MUST conform to the ABNF reg-rel-type
      definition of [RFC6690] and MUST NOT be a URI.

   *  It is recommended to use the period "." character for
      segmentation.

   The registry initially contains one value:



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  "core.rd-group": An application group as described in Appendix A.

9.5.  Multicast Address Registration

   IANA is asked to assign the following multicast addresses for use by
   CoAP nodes:

   IPv4 - "all CoRE Resource Directories" address MCD2 (suggestion:
   224.0.1.189), from the "IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry".  As
   the address is used for discovery that may span beyond a single
   network, it has come from the Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1.x)
   [RFC5771].

   IPv6 - "all CoRE Resource Directories" address MCD1 (suggestions
   FF0X::FE), from the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry", in the
   "Variable Scope Multicast Addresses" space (RFC 3307).  Note that
   there is a distinct multicast address for each scope that interested
   CoAP nodes should listen to; CoAP needs the Link-Local and Site-Local
   scopes only.

   [ The RFC editor is asked to replace MCD1 and MCD2 with the assigned
   addresses throughout the document. ]

9.6.  Well-Known URIs

   IANA is asked to extend the reference for the "core" URI suffix in
   the "Well-Known URIs" registry to reference this document next to
   [RFC6690], as this defines the resource's behavior for POST requests.

9.7.  Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry

   IANA is asked to enter four new items into the Service Names and
   Transport Protocol Port Number Registry:

   *  Service name: "core-rd", Protocol: "udp", Description: "Resource
      Directory accessed using CoAP"

   *  Service name "core-rd-dtls", Protocol: "udp", Description:
      "Resource Directory accessed using CoAP over DTLS"

   *  Service name: "core-rd", Protocol: "tcp", Description: "Resource
      Directory accessed using CoAP over TCP"

   *  Service name "core-rd-tls", Protocol: "tcp", Description:
      "Resource Directory accessed using CoAP over TLS"

   All in common have this document as their reference.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


10.  Examples

   Two examples are presented: a Lighting Installation example in
   Section 10.1 and a LWM2M example in Section 10.2.

10.1.  Lighting Installation

   This example shows a simplified lighting installation which makes use
   of the RD with a CoAP interface to facilitate the installation and
   start-up of the application code in the lights and sensors.  In
   particular, the example leads to the definition of a group and the
   enabling of the corresponding multicast address as described in
   Appendix A.  No conclusions must be drawn on the realization of
   actual installation or naming procedures, because the example only
   "emphasizes" some of the issues that may influence the use of the RD
   and does not pretend to be normative.

10.1.1.  Installation Characteristics

   The example assumes that the installation is managed.  That means
   that a Commissioning Tool (CT) is used to authorize the addition of
   nodes, name them, and name their services.  The CT can be connected
   to the installation in many ways: the CT can be part of the
   installation network, connected by WiFi to the installation network,
   or connected via GPRS link, or other method.

   It is assumed that there are two naming authorities for the
   installation: (1) the network manager that is responsible for the
   correct operation of the network and the connected interfaces, and
   (2) the lighting manager that is responsible for the correct
   functioning of networked lights and sensors.  The result is the
   existence of two naming schemes coming from the two managing
   entities.

   The example installation consists of one presence sensor, and two
   luminaries, luminary1 and luminary2, each with their own wireless
   interface.  Each luminary contains three lamps: left, right and
   middle.  Each luminary is accessible through one endpoint.  For each
   lamp a resource exists to modify the settings of a lamp in a
   luminary.  The purpose of the installation is that the presence
   sensor notifies the presence of persons to a group of lamps.  The
   group of lamps consists of: middle and left lamps of luminary1 and
   right lamp of luminary2.

   Before commissioning by the lighting manager, the network is
   installed and access to the interfaces is proven to work by the
   network manager.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   At the moment of installation, the network under installation is not
   necessarily connected to the DNS infra structure.  Therefore, SLAAC
   IPv6 addresses are assigned to CT, RD, luminaries and sensor shown in
   Table 4 below:

                   +=================+================+
                   | Name            | IPv6 address   |
                   +=================+================+
                   | luminary1       | 2001:db8:4::1  |
                   +-----------------+----------------+
                   | luminary2       | 2001:db8:4::2  |
                   +-----------------+----------------+
                   | Presence sensor | 2001:db8:4::3  |
                   +-----------------+----------------+
                   | RD              | 2001:db8:4::ff |
                   +-----------------+----------------+

                    Table 4: interface SLAAC addresses

   In Section 10.1.2 the use of RD during installation is presented.

10.1.2.  RD entries

   It is assumed that access to the DNS infrastructure is not always
   possible during installation.  Therefore, the SLAAC addresses are
   used in this section.

   For discovery, the resource types (rt) of the devices are important.
   The lamps in the luminaries have rt: light, and the presence sensor
   has rt: p-sensor.  The endpoints have names which are relevant to the
   light installation manager.  In this case luminary1, luminary2, and
   the presence sensor are located in room 2-4-015, where luminary1 is
   located at the window and luminary2 and the presence sensor are
   located at the door.  The endpoint names reflect this physical
   location.  The middle, left and right lamps are accessed via path
   /light/middle, /light/left, and /light/right respectively.  The
   identifiers relevant to the RD are shown in Table 5 below:














Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


     +===========+==================+===============+===============+
     | Name      | endpoint         | resource path | resource type |
     +===========+==================+===============+===============+
     | luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/left   | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/middle | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | luminary1 | lm_R2-4-015_wndw | /light/right  | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/left   | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/middle | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | luminary2 | lm_R2-4-015_door | /light/right  | light         |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+
     | Presence  | ps_R2-4-015_door | /ps           | p-sensor      |
     | sensor    |                  |               |               |
     +-----------+------------------+---------------+---------------+

                         Table 5: RD identifiers

   It is assumed that the CT knows the RD's address, and has performed
   URI discovery on it that returned a response like the one in the
   Section 4.3 example.

   The CT inserts the endpoints of the luminaries and the sensor in the
   RD using the registration base URI parameter (base) to specify the
   interface address:























Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: POST coap://[2001:db8:4::ff]/rd
     ?ep=lm_R2-4-015_wndw&base=coap://[2001:db8:4::1]&d=R2-4-015
   Payload:
   </light/left>;rt="light",
   </light/middle>;rt="light",
   </light/right>;rt="light"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/4521

   Req: POST coap://[2001:db8:4::ff]/rd
     ?ep=lm_R2-4-015_door&base=coap://[2001:db8:4::2]&d=R2-4-015
   Payload:
   </light/left>;rt="light",
   </light/middle>;rt="light",
   </light/right>;rt="light"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/4522

   Req: POST coap://[2001:db8:4::ff]/rd
     ?ep=ps_R2-4-015_door&base=coap://[2001:db8:4::3]d&d=R2-4-015
   Payload:
   </ps>;rt="p-sensor"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/4523

         Figure 23: Example of registrations a CT enters into an RD

   The sector name d=R2-4-015 has been added for an efficient lookup
   because filtering on "ep" name is more awkward.  The same sector name
   is communicated to the two luminaries and the presence sensor by the
   CT.

   The group is specified in the RD.  The base parameter is set to the
   site-local multicast address allocated to the group.  In the POST in
   the example below, the resources supported by all group members are
   published.












Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 54]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Req: POST coap://[2001:db8:4::ff]/rd
   ?ep=grp_R2-4-015&et=core.rd-group&base=coap://[ff05::1]
   Payload:
   </light/left>;rt="light",
   </light/middle>;rt="light",
   </light/right>;rt="light"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/501

       Figure 24: Example of a multicast group a CT enters into an RD

   After the filling of the RD by the CT, the application in the
   luminaries can learn to which groups they belong, and enable their
   interface for the multicast address.

   The luminary, knowing its sector and being configured to join any
   group containing lights, searches for candidate groups and joins
   them:

   Req: GET coap://[2001:db8:4::ff]/rd-lookup/ep
     ?d=R2-4-015&et=core.rd-group&rt=light

   Res: 2.05 Content
   </rd/501>;ep="grp_R2-4-015";et="core.rd-group";
             base="coap://[ff05::1]";rt="core.rd-ep"

          Figure 25: Example of a lookup exchange to find suitable
                            multicast addresses

   From the returned base parameter value, the luminary learns the
   multicast address of the multicast group.

   Alternatively, the CT can communicate the multicast address directly
   to the luminaries by using the "coap-group" resource specified in
   [RFC7390].

   Req: POST coap://[2001:db8:4::1]/coap-group
   Content-Format: application/coap-group+json
   Payload:
   { "a": "[ff05::1]", "n": "grp_R2-4-015"}

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /coap-group/1

      Figure 26: Example use of direct multicast address configuration





Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 55]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Dependent on the situation, only the address, "a", or the name, "n",
   is specified in the coap-group resource.

   The presence sensor can learn the presence of groups that support
   resources with rt=light in its own sector by sending the same
   request, as used by the luminary.  The presence sensor learns the
   multicast address to use for sending messages to the luminaries.

10.2.  OMA Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) Example

   This example shows how the OMA LWM2M specification makes use of RDs.

   OMA LWM2M is a profile for device services based on CoAP(OMA Name
   Authority).  LWM2M defines a simple object model and a number of
   abstract interfaces and operations for device management and device
   service enablement.

   An LWM2M server is an instance of an LWM2M middleware service layer,
   containing an RD along with other LWM2M interfaces defined by the
   LWM2M specification.

   The registration interface of this specification is used to provide
   the LWM2M Registration interface.

   LWM2M does not provide for registration sectors and does not
   currently use the rd-lookup interface.

   The LWM2M specification describes a set of interfaces and a resource
   model used between a LWM2M device and an LWM2M server.  Other
   interfaces, proxies, and applications are currently out of scope for
   LWM2M.

   The location of the LWM2M Server and RD URI path is provided by the
   LWM2M Bootstrap process, so no dynamic discovery of the RD is used.
   LWM2M Servers and endpoints are not required to implement the /.well-
   known/core resource.

10.2.1.  The LWM2M Object Model

   The OMA LWM2M object model is based on a simple 2 level class
   hierarchy consisting of Objects and Resources.

   An LWM2M Resource is a REST endpoint, allowed to be a single value or
   an array of values of the same data type.

   An LWM2M Object is a resource template and container type that
   encapsulates a set of related resources.  An LWM2M Object represents
   a specific type of information source; for example, there is a LWM2M



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 56]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Device Management object that represents a network connection,
   containing resources that represent individual properties like radio
   signal strength.

   Since there may potentially be more than one of a given type object,
   for example more than one network connection, LWM2M defines instances
   of objects that contain the resources that represent a specific
   physical thing.

   The URI template for LWM2M consists of a base URI followed by Object,
   Instance, and Resource IDs:

   {/base-uri}{/object-id}{/object-instance}{/resource-id}{/resource-
   instance}

   The five variables given here are strings.  base-uri can also have
   the special value "undefined" (sometimes called "null" in RFC 6570).
   Each of the variables object-instance, resource-id, and resource-
   instance can be the special value "undefined" only if the values
   behind it in this sequence also are "undefined".  As a special case,
   object-instance can be "empty" (which is different from "undefined")
   if resource-id is not "undefined".

   base-uri := Base URI for LWM2M resources or "undefined" for default
   (empty) base URI

   object-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered object ID (0-65535)

   object-instance := Object instance identifier (0-65535) or
   "undefined"/"empty" (see above)) to refer to all instances of an
   object ID

   resource-id := OMNA (OMA Name Authority) registered resource ID
   (0-65535) or "undefined" to refer to all resources within an instance

   resource-instance := Resource instance identifier or "undefined" to
   refer to single instance of a resource

   LWM2M IDs are 16 bit unsigned integers represented in decimal (no
   leading zeroes except for the value 0) by URI format strings.  For
   example, a LWM2M URI might be:

   /1/0/1








Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 57]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The base URI is empty, the Object ID is 1, the instance ID is 0, the
   resource ID is 1, and the resource instance is "undefined".  This
   example URI points to internal resource 1, which represents the
   registration lifetime configured, in instance 0 of a type 1 object
   (LWM2M Server Object).

10.2.2.  LWM2M Register Endpoint

   LWM2M defines a registration interface based on the REST API,
   described in Section 5.  The RD registration URI path of the LWM2M RD
   is specified to be "/rd".

   LWM2M endpoints register object IDs, for example </1>, to indicate
   that a particular object type is supported, and register object
   instances, for example </1/0>, to indicate that a particular instance
   of that object type exists.

   Resources within the LWM2M object instance are not registered with
   the RD, but may be discovered by reading the resource links from the
   object instance using GET with a CoAP Content-Format of application/
   link-format.  Resources may also be read as a structured object by
   performing a GET to the object instance with a Content-Format of
   senml+json.

   When an LWM2M object or instance is registered, this indicates to the
   LWM2M server that the object and its resources are available for
   management and service enablement (REST API) operations.

   LWM2M endpoints may use the following RD registration parameters as
   defined in Table 3 :

   ep - Endpoint Name
   lt - registration lifetime

   Endpoint Name, Lifetime, and LWM2M Version are mandatory parameters
   for the register operation, all other registration parameters are
   optional.

   Additional optional LWM2M registration parameters are defined:












Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 58]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


     +=========+=======+===============================+=============+
     | Name    | Query | Validity                      | Description |
     +=========+=======+===============================+=============+
     | Binding | b     | {"U",UQ","S","SQ","US","UQS"} | Available   |
     | Mode    |       |                               | Protocols   |
     +---------+-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
     +---------+-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
     | LWM2M   | ver   | 1.0                           | Spec        |
     | Version |       |                               | Version     |
     +---------+-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
     +---------+-------+-------------------------------+-------------+
     | SMS     | sms   |                               | MSISDN      |
     | Number  |       |                               |             |
     +---------+-------+-------------------------------+-------------+

             Table 6: LWM2M Additional Registration Parameters

   The following RD registration parameters are not currently specified
   for use in LWM2M:

   et - Endpoint Type
   base - Registration Base URI

   The endpoint registration must include a payload containing links to
   all supported objects and existing object instances, optionally
   including the appropriate link-format relations.

   Here is an example LWM2M registration payload:

   </1>,</1/0>,</3/0>,</5>

   This link format payload indicates that object ID 1 (LWM2M Server
   Object) is supported, with a single instance 0 existing, object ID 3
   (LWM2M Device object) is supported, with a single instance 0
   existing, and object 5 (LWM2M Firmware Object) is supported, with no
   existing instances.

10.2.3.  LWM2M Update Endpoint Registration

   The LwM2M update is really very similar to the registration update as
   described in Section 5.3.1, with the only difference that there are
   more parameters defined and available.  All the parameters listed in
   that section are also available with the initial registration but are
   all optional:







Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 59]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   lt - Registration Lifetime
   b - Protocol Binding
   sms - MSISDN
   link payload - new or modified links

   A Registration update is also specified to be used to update the
   LWM2M server whenever the endpoint's UDP port or IP address are
   changed.

10.2.4.  LWM2M De-Register Endpoint

   LWM2M allows for de-registration using the delete method on the
   returned location from the initial registration operation.  LWM2M de-
   registration proceeds as described in Section 5.3.2.

11.  Acknowledgments

   Oscar Novo, Srdjan Krco, Szymon Sasin, Kerry Lynn, Esko Dijk, Anders
   Brandt, Matthieu Vial, Jim Schaad, Mohit Sethi, Hauke Petersen,
   Hannes Tschofenig, Sampo Ukkola, Linyi Tian, Jan Newmarch, Matthias
   Kovatsch, Jaime Jimenez and Ted Lemon have provided helpful comments,
   discussions and ideas to improve and shape this document.  Zach would
   also like to thank his colleagues from the EU FP7 SENSEI project,
   where many of the RD concepts were originally developed.

12.  Changelog

   changes from -24 to -25

   *  Large rework of section 7 (Security policies)

      Rather than prescribing which data in the RD _is_ authenticated
      (and how), it now describes what applications built on an RD _can_
      choose to authenticate, show possibilities on how to do it and
      outline what it means for clients.

      This addresses Russ' Genart review points on details in the text
      in a rather broad fashion.  That is because the discussion on the
      topic inside the WG showed that that text on security has been
      driven more review-by-review than by an architectural plan of the
      authors and WG.

   *  Add concrete suggestions (twice as long as registrant number with
      retries, or UUIDs without) for random endpoint names

   *  Point out that simple registration can have faked origins,
      RECOMMEND mitigation when applicable and suggest the Echo
      mechanism to implement it.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 60]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Reference existing and upcoming specifications for DDOS mitigation
      in CoAP.

   *  Explain the provenance of the example's multicast address.

   *  Make "SHOULD" of not manipulating foreign registrations a "should"
      and explain how it is enforced

   *  Clarify application of RFC6570 to search parameters

   *  Syntactic fixes in examples

   *  IANA:

      -  Don't announce expected number of registrations (goes to write-
         up)

      -  Include syntax as part of a field's validity in entry
         requirements

   *  Editorial changes

      -  Align wording between abstract and introduction

      -  Abbreviation normalization: "ER model", "RD"

      -  RFC8174 boilerplate update

      -  Minor clarity fixes

      -  Markup and layouting

   changes from -23 to -24

   *  Discovery using DNS-SD added again

   *  Minimum lifetime (lt) reduced from 60 to 1

   *  References added

   *  IANA considerations

      -  added about .well-known/core resource

      -  added DNS-SD service names

      -  made RDAO option number a suggestion




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 61]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


      -  added "reference" field to endpoint type registry

   *  Lookup: mention that anchor is a legitimate lookup attribute

   *  Terminology and example fixes

   *  Layout fixes, esp. the use of non-ASCII characters in figures

   changes from -22 to -23

   *  Explain that updates can not remove attributes

   *  Typo fixes

   changes from -21 to -22

   *  Request a dedicated IPv4 address from IANA (rather than sharing
      with All CoAP nodes)

   *  Fix erroneous examples

   *  Editorial changes

      -  Add figure numbers to examples

      -  Update RD parameters table to reflect changes of earlier
         versions in the text

      -  Typos and minor wording

   changes from -20 to -21

   (Processing comments during WGLC)

   *  Defer outdated description of using DNS-SD to find an RD to the
      defining document

   *  Describe operational conditions in automation example

   *  Recommend particular discovery mechanisms for some managed network
      scenarios

   changes from -19 to -20

   (Processing comments from the WG chair review)

   *  Define the permissible characters in endpoint and sector names




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 62]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Express requirements on NAT situations in more abstract terms

   *  Shifted heading levels to have the interfaces on the same level

   *  Group instructions for error handling into general section

   *  Simple Registration: process reflowed into items list

   *  Updated introduction to reflect state of CoRE in general,
      reference RFC7228 (defining "constrained") and use "IoT" term in
      addition to "M2M"

   *  Update acknowledgements

   *  Assorted editorial changes

      -  Unify examples style

      -  Terminology: RDAO defined and not only expanded

      -  Add CT to Figure 1

      -  Consistency in the use of the term "Content Format"

   changes from -18 to -19

   *  link-local addresses: allow but prescribe split-horizon fashion
      when used, disallow zone identifiers

   *  Remove informative references to documents not mentioned any more

   changes from -17 to -18

   *  Rather than re-specifying link format (Modernized Link Format),
      describe a Limited Link Format that's the uncontested subset of
      Link Format

   *  Acknowledging the -17 version as part of the draft

   *  Move "Read endpoint links" operation to future specification like
      PATCH

   *  Demote links-json to an informative reference, and removed them
      from exchange examples

   *  Add note on unusability of link-local IP addresses, and describe
      mitigation.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 63]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Reshuffling of sections: Move additional operations and endpoint
      lookup back from appendix, and groups into one

   *  Lookup interface tightened to not imply applicability for non
      link-format lookups (as those can have vastly different views on
      link cardinality)

   *  Simple registration: Change sequence of GET and POST-response,
      ensuring unsuccessful registrations are reported as such, and
      suggest how devices that would have required the inverse behavior
      can still cope with it.

   *  Abstract and introduction reworded to avoid the impression that
      resources are stored in full in the RD

   *  Simplify the rules governing when a registration resource can or
      must be changed.

   *  Drop a figure that has become useless due to the changes of and
      -13 and -17

   *  Wording consistency fixes: Use "Registrations" and "target
      attributes"

   *  Fix incorrect use of content negotiation in discovery interface
      description (Content-Format -> Accept)

   *  State that the base attribute value is part of endpoint lookup
      even when implicit in the registration

   *  Update references from RFC5988 to its update RFC8288

   *  Remove appendix on protocol-negotiation (which had a note to be
      removed before publication)

   changes from -16 to -17

   (Note that -17 is published as a direct follow-up to -16, containing
   a single change to be discussed at IETF103)

   *  Removed groups that are enumerations of registrations and have
      dedicated mechanism

   *  Add groups that are enumerations of shared resources and are a
      special case of endpoint registrations

   changes from -15 to -16




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 64]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Recommend a common set of resources for members of a group

   *  Clarified use of multicast group in lighting example

   *  Add note on concurrent registrations from one EP being possible
      but not expected

   *  Refresh web examples appendix to reflect current use of Modernized
      Link Format

   *  Add examples of URIs where Modernized Link Format matters

   *  Editorial changes

   changes from -14 to -15

   *  Rewrite of section "Security policies"

   *  Clarify that the "base" parameter text applies both to relative
      references both in anchor and href

   *  Renamed "Registree-EP" to Registrant-EP"

   *  Talk of "relative references" and "URIs" rather than "relative"
      and "absolute" URIs.  (The concept of "absolute URIs" of [RFC3986]
      is not needed in RD).

   *  Fixed examples

   *  Editorial changes

   changes from -13 to -14

   *  Rename "registration context" to "registration base URI" (and
      "con" to "base") and "domain" to "sector" (where the abbreviation
      "d" stays for compatibility reasons)

   *  Introduced resource types core.rd-ep and core.rd-gp

   *  Registration management moved to appendix A, including endpoint
      and group lookup

   *  Minor editorial changes

      -  PATCH/iPATCH is clearly deferred to another document

      -  Recommend against query / fragment identifier in con=




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 65]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


      -  Interface description lists are described as illustrative

      -  Rewording of Simple Registration

   *  Simple registration carries no error information and succeeds
      immediately (previously, sequence was unspecified)

   *  Lookup: href are matched against resolved values (previously, this
      was unspecified)

   *  Lookup: lt are not exposed any more

   *  con/base: Paths are allowed

   *  Registration resource locations can not have query or fragment
      parts

   *  Default life time extended to 25 hours

   *  clarified registration update rules

   *  lt-value semantics for lookup clarified.

   *  added template for simple registration

   changes from -12 to -13

   *  Added "all resource directory" nodes MC address

   *  Clarified observation behavior

   *  version identification

   *  example rt= and et= values

   *  domain from figure 2

   *  more explanatory text

   *  endpoints of a groups hosted by different RD

   *  resolve RFC6690-vs-8288 resolution ambiguities:

      -  require registered links not to be relative when using anchor

      -  return absolute URIs in resource lookup

   changes from -11 to -12



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 66]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  added Content Model section, including ER diagram

   *  removed domain lookup interface; domains are now plain attributes
      of groups and endpoints

   *  updated chapter "Finding a Resource Directory"; now distinguishes
      configuration-provided, network-provided and heuristic sources

   *  improved text on: atomicity, idempotency, lookup with multiple
      parameters, endpoint removal, simple registration

   *  updated LWM2M description

   *  clarified where relative references are resolved, and how context
      and anchor interact

   *  new appendix on the interaction with RFCs 6690, 5988 and 3986

   *  lookup interface: group and endpoint lookup return group and
      registration resources as link targets

   *  lookup interface: search parameters work the same across all
      entities

   *  removed all methods that modify links in an existing registration
      (POST with payload, PATCH and iPATCH)

   *  removed plurality definition (was only needed for link
      modification)

   *  enhanced IANA registry text

   *  state that lookup resources can be observable

   *  More examples and improved text

   changes from -09 to -10

   *  removed "ins" and "exp" link-format extensions.

   *  removed all text concerning DNS-SD.

   *  removed inconsistency in RDAO text.

   *  suggestions taken over from various sources

   *  replaced "Function Set" with "REST API", "base URI", "base path"




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 67]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  moved simple registration to registration section

   changes from -08 to -09

   *  clarified the "example use" of the base RD resource values /rd,
      /rd-lookup, and /rd-group.

   *  changed "ins" ABNF notation.

   *  various editorial improvements, including in examples

   *  clarifications for RDAO

   changes from -07 to -08

   *  removed link target value returned from domain and group lookup
      types

   *  Maximum length of domain parameter 63 bytes for consistency with
      group

   *  removed option for simple POST of link data, don't require a
      .well-known/core resource to accept POST data and handle it in a
      special way; we already have /rd for that

   *  add IPv6 ND Option for discovery of an RD

   *  clarify group configuration section 6.1 that endpoints must be
      registered before including them in a group

   *  removed all superfluous client-server diagrams

   *  simplified lighting example

   *  introduced Commissioning Tool

   *  RD-Look-up text is extended.

   changes from -06 to -07

   *  added text in the discovery section to allow content format hints
      to be exposed in the discovery link attributes

   *  editorial updates to section 9

   *  update author information

   *  minor text corrections



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 68]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Changes from -05 to -06

   *  added note that the PATCH section is contingent on the progress of
      the PATCH method

   changes from -04 to -05

   *  added Update Endpoint Links using PATCH

   *  http access made explicit in interface specification

   *  Added http examples

   Changes from -03 to -04:

   *  Added http response codes

   *  Clarified endpoint name usage

   *  Add application/link-format+cbor content-format

   Changes from -02 to -03:

   *  Added an example for lighting and DNS integration

   *  Added an example for RD use in OMA LWM2M

   *  Added Read Links operation for link inspection by endpoints

   *  Expanded DNS-SD section

   *  Added draft authors Peter van der Stok and Michael Koster

   Changes from -01 to -02:

   *  Added a catalogue use case.

   *  Changed the registration update to a POST with optional link
      format payload.  Removed the endpoint type update from the update.

   *  Additional examples section added for more complex use cases.

   *  New DNS-SD mapping section.

   *  Added text on endpoint identification and authentication.

   *  Error code 4.04 added to Registration Update and Delete requests.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 69]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Made 63 bytes a SHOULD rather than a MUST for endpoint name and
      resource type parameters.

   Changes from -00 to -01:

   *  Removed the ETag validation feature.

   *  Place holder for the DNS-SD mapping section.

   *  Explicitly disabled GET or POST on returned Location.

   *  New registry for RD parameters.

   *  Added support for the JSON Link Format.

   *  Added reference to the Groupcomm WG draft.

   Changes from -05 to WG Document -00:

   *  Updated the version and date.

   Changes from -04 to -05:

   *  Restricted Update to parameter updates.

   *  Added pagination support for the Lookup interface.

   *  Minor editing, bug fixes and reference updates.

   *  Added group support.

   *  Changed rt to et for the registration and update interface.

   Changes from -03 to -04:

   *  Added the ins= parameter back for the DNS-SD mapping.

   *  Integrated the Simple Directory Discovery from Carsten.

   *  Editorial improvements.

   *  Fixed the use of ETags.

   *  Fixed tickets 383 and 372

   Changes from -02 to -03:





Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 70]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   *  Changed the endpoint name back to a single registration parameter
      ep= and removed the h= and ins= parameters.

   *  Updated REST interface descriptions to use RFC6570 URI Template
      format.

   *  Introduced an improved RD Lookup design as its own function set.

   *  Improved the security considerations section.

   *  Made the POST registration interface idempotent by requiring the
      ep= parameter to be present.

   Changes from -01 to -02:

   *  Added a terminology section.

   *  Changed the inclusion of an ETag in registration or update to a
      MAY.

   *  Added the concept of an RD Domain and a registration parameter for
      it.

   *  Recommended the Location returned from a registration to be
      stable, allowing for endpoint and Domain information to be changed
      during updates.

   *  Changed the lookup interface to accept endpoint and Domain as
      query string parameters to control the scope of a lookup.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 71]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [ER]       Chen, P., "The entity-relationship model--toward a unified
              view of data", DOI 10.1145/320434.320440, ACM Transactions
              on Database Systems Vol. 1, pp. 9-36, March 1976,
              <https://doi.org/10.1145/320434.320440>.

   [I-D.bormann-t2trg-rel-impl]
              Bormann, C., "impl-info: A link relation type for
              disclosing implementation information", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-bormann-t2trg-rel-impl-01, 27 March
              2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bormann-
              t2trg-rel-impl-01.txt>.

   [I-D.hartke-t2trg-coral]
              Hartke, K., "The Constrained RESTful Application Language
              (CoRAL)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hartke-
              t2trg-coral-09, 8 July 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
              internet-drafts/draft-hartke-t2trg-coral-09.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]
              Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
              H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
              Framework (ACE-OAuth)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-35, 24 June 2020,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
              authz-35.txt>.






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 72]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]
              Amsuess, C., Mattsson, J., and G. Selander, "CoAP: Echo,
              Request-Tag, and Token Processing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-09, 9
              March 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
              ietf-core-echo-request-tag-09.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-links-json]
              Li, K., Rahman, A., and C. Bormann, "Representing
              Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format in
              JSON and CBOR", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-core-links-json-10, 26 February 2018,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-core-
              links-json-10.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-rd-dns-sd]
              Stok, P., Koster, M., and C. Amsuess, "CoRE Resource
              Directory: DNS-SD mapping", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-core-rd-dns-sd-05, 7 July 2019,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-core-rd-
              dns-sd-05.txt>.

   [I-D.silverajan-core-coap-protocol-negotiation]
              Silverajan, B. and M. Ocak, "CoAP Protocol Negotiation",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-silverajan-core-
              coap-protocol-negotiation-09, 2 July 2018,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-silverajan-
              core-coap-protocol-negotiation-09.txt>.

   [RFC3306]  Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6
              Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, DOI 10.17487/RFC3306,
              August 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3306>.

   [RFC3849]  Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, July 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3849>.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 73]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   [RFC5771]  Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for
              IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5771, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5771>.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
              Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
              Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
              RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.

   [RFC6874]  Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
              IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
              Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, DOI 10.17487/RFC6874,
              February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6874>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7390]  Rahman, A., Ed. and E. Dijk, Ed., "Group Communication for
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7390, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7390>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7641>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8132>.






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 74]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   [RFC8141]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Klensin, "Uniform Resource Names
              (URNs)", RFC 8141, DOI 10.17487/RFC8141, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141>.

   [RFC8288]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.

Appendix A.  Groups Registration and Lookup

   The RD-Groups usage pattern allows announcing application groups
   inside an RD.

   Groups are represented by endpoint registrations.  Their base address
   is a multicast address, and they SHOULD be entered with the endpoint
   type "core.rd-group".  The endpoint name can also be referred to as a
   group name in this context.

   The registration is inserted into the RD by a Commissioning Tool,
   which might also be known as a group manager here.  It performs third
   party registration and registration updates.

   The links it registers SHOULD be available on all members that join
   the group.  Depending on the application, members that lack some
   resource MAY be permissible if requests to them fail gracefully.

   The following example shows a CT registering a group with the name
   "lights" which provides two resources.  The directory resource path
   /rd is an example RD location discovered in a request similar to
   Figure 5.  The group address in the example is constructed from
   [RFC3849]'s reserved 2001:db8:: prefix as a unicast-prefix based
   site-local address (see [RFC3306].

   Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd?ep=lights&et=core.rd-group
                                     &base=coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]
   Content-Format: 40
   Payload:
   </light>;rt="light";if="core.a",
   </color-temperature>;if="core.p";u="K"

   Res: 2.01 Created
   Location-Path: /rd/12

                 Figure 27: Example registration of a group

   In this example, the group manager can easily permit devices that
   have no writable color-temperature to join, as they would still
   respond to brightness changing commands.  Had the group instead



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 75]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   contained a single resource that sets brightness and color
   temperature atomically, endpoints would need to support both
   properties.

   The resources of a group can be looked up like any other resource,
   and the group registrations (along with any additional registration
   parameters) can be looked up using the endpoint lookup interface.

   The following example shows a client performing and endpoint lookup
   for all groups.

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/ep?et=core.rd-group

   Res: 2.05 Content
   Payload:
   </rd/501>;ep="GRP_R2-4-015";et="core.rd-group";
                                      base="coap://[ff05::1]",
   </rd/12>;ep=lights&et=core.rd-group;
            base="coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]";rt="core.rd-ep"

                    Figure 28: Example lookup of groups

   The following example shows a client performing a lookup of all
   resources of all endpoints (groups) with et=core.rd-group.

   Req: GET /rd-lookup/res?et=core.rd-group

   <coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]/light>;rt="light";if="core.a";
        et="core.rd-group";anchor="coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]",
   <coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]/color-temperature>;if="core.p";u="K";
        et="core.rd-group";
        anchor="coap://[ff35:30:2001:db8::1]"

            Figure 29: Example lookup of resources inside groups

Appendix B.  Web links and the Resource Directory

   Understanding the semantics of a link-format document and its URI
   references is a journey through different documents ([RFC3986]
   defining URIs, [RFC6690] defining link-format documents based on
   [RFC8288] which defines Link header fields, and [RFC7252] providing
   the transport).  This appendix summarizes the mechanisms and
   semantics at play from an entry in ".well-known/core" to a resource
   lookup.

   This text is primarily aimed at people entering the field of
   Constrained Restful Environments from applications that previously
   did not use web mechanisms.



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 76]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   The explanation of the steps makes some shortcuts in the more
   confusing details of [RFC6690], which are justified as all examples
   being in Limited Link Format.

B.1.  A simple example

   Let's start this example with a very simple host, "2001:db8:f0::1".
   A client that follows classical CoAP Discovery ([RFC7252] Section 7),
   sends the following multicast request to learn about neighbours
   supporting resources with resource-type "temperature".

   The client sends a link-local multicast:

   GET coap://[ff02::fd]:5683/.well-known/core?rt=temperature

   RES 2.05 Content
   </temp>;rt=temperature;ct=0

              Figure 30: Example of direct resource discovery

   where the response is sent by the server, "[2001:db8:f0::1]:5683".

   While the client - on the practical or implementation side - can just
   go ahead and create a new request to "[2001:db8:f0::1]:5683" with
   Uri-Path: "temp", the full resolution steps for insertion into and
   retrieval from the RD without any shortcuts are:

B.1.1.  Resolving the URIs

   The client parses the single returned record.  The link's target
   (sometimes called "href") is ""/temp"", which is a relative URI that
   needs resolving.  The base URI <coap://[ff02::fd]:5683/.well-known/
   core> is used to resolve the reference /temp against.

   The Base URI of the requested resource can be composed from the
   options of the CoAP GET request by following the steps of [RFC7252]
   section 6.5 (with an addition at the end of 8.2) into
   ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/.well-known/core"".

   Because ""/temp"" starts with a single slash, the record's target is
   resolved by replacing the path ""/.well-known/core"" from the Base
   URI (section 5.2 [RFC3986]) with the relative target URI ""/temp""
   into ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp"".








Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 77]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


B.1.2.  Interpreting attributes and relations

   Some more information but the record's target can be obtained from
   the payload: the resource type of the target is "temperature", and
   its content format is text/plain (ct=0).

   A relation in a web link is a three-part statement that specifies a
   named relation between the so-called "context resource" and the
   target resource, like "_This page_ has _its table of contents_ at _/
   toc.html_".  In link format documents, there is an implicit "host
   relation" specified with default parameter: rel="hosts".

   In our example, the context resource of the link is the URI specified
   in the GET request "coap:://[2001:db8:f0::1]/.well-known/core".  A
   full English expression of the "host relation" is:

   '"coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/.well-known/core" is hosting the resource
   "coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp", which is of the resource type
   "temperature" and can be accessed using the text/plain content
   format.'

B.2.  A slightly more complex example

   Omitting the "rt=temperature" filter, the discovery query would have
   given some more records in the payload:

   GET coap://[ff02::fd]:5683/.well-known/core

   RES 2.05 Content
   </temp>;rt=temperature;ct=0,
   </light>;rt=light-lux;ct=0,
   </t>;anchor="/sensors/temp";rel=alternate,
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/t123>;anchor="/temp";
       rel="describedby"

          Figure 31: Extended example of direct resource discovery

   Parsing the third record, the client encounters the "anchor"
   parameter.  It is a URI relative to the Base URI of the request and
   is thus resolved to ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp"".  That
   is the context resource of the link, so the "rel" statement is not
   about the target and the Base URI any more, but about the target and
   the resolved URI.  Thus, the third record could be read as
   ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp" has an alternate
   representation at "coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/t"".






Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 78]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Following the same resolution steps, the fourth record can be read as
   ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp" is described by
   "http://www.example.com/sensors/t123"".

B.3.  Enter the Resource Directory

   The RD tries to carry the semantics obtainable by classical CoAP
   discovery over to the resource lookup interface as faithfully as
   possible.

   For the following queries, we will assume that the simple host has
   used Simple Registration to register at the RD that was announced to
   it, sending this request from its UDP port "[2001:db8:f0::1]:6553":

   POST coap://[2001:db8:f01::ff]/.well-known/core?ep=simple-host1

         Figure 32: Example request starting a simple registration

   The RD would have accepted the registration, and queried the simple
   host's ".well-known/core" by itself.  As a result, the host is
   registered as an endpoint in the RD with the name "simple-host1".
   The registration is active for 90000 seconds, and the endpoint
   registration Base URI is ""coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]"" following the
   resolution steps described in Appendix B.1.1.  It should be remarked
   that the Base URI constructed that way always yields a URI of the
   form: scheme://authority without path suffix.

   If the client now queries the RD as it would previously have issued a
   multicast request, it would go through the RD discovery steps by
   fetching "coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/.well-known/core?rt=core.rd-
   lookup-res", obtain "coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res" as the
   resource lookup endpoint, and issue a request to
   "coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res?rt=temperature" to receive
   the following data:

   <coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp>;rt=temperature;ct=0;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]"

       Figure 33: Example payload of a response to a resource lookup

   This is not _literally_ the same response that it would have received
   from a multicast request, but it contains the equivalent statement:

   '"coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]" is hosting the resource
   "coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp", which is of the resource type
   "temperature" and can be accessed using the text/plain content
   format.'




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 79]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   (The difference is whether "/" or "/.well-known/core" hosts the
   resources, which does not matter in this application; if it did, the
   endpoint would have been more explicit.  Actually, /.well-known/core
   does NOT host the resource but stores a URI reference to the
   resource.)

   To complete the examples, the client could also query all resources
   hosted at the endpoint with the known endpoint name "simple-host1".
   A request to "coap://[2001:db8:f0::ff]/rd-lookup/res?ep=simple-host1"
   would return

   <coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/temp>;rt=temperature;ct=0;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]",
   <coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/light>;rt=light-lux;ct=0;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]",
   <coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/t>;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp";rel=alternate,
   <http://www.example.com/sensors/t123>;
       anchor="coap://[2001:db8:f0::1]/sensors/temp";rel="describedby"

      Figure 34: Extended example payload of a response to a resource
                                   lookup

   All the target and anchor references are already in absolute form
   there, which don't need to be resolved any further.

   Had the simple host done an equivalent full registration with a base=
   parameter (e.g. "?ep=simple-host1&base=coap+tcp://simple-
   host1.example.com"), that context would have been used to resolve the
   relative anchor values instead, giving

   <coap+tcp://simple-host1.example.com/temp>;rt=temperature;ct=0;
       anchor="coap+tcp://simple-host1.example.com"

       Figure 35: Example payload of a response to a resource lookup
                         with a dedicated base URI

   and analogous records.

B.4.  A note on differences between link-format and Link header fields

   While link-format and Link header fields look very similar and are
   based on the same model of typed links, there are some differences
   between [RFC6690] and [RFC8288], which are dealt with differently:

   *  "Resolving the target against the anchor": [RFC6690] Section 2.1
      states that the anchor of a link is used as the Base URI against
      which the term inside the angle brackets (the target) is resolved,



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 80]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


      falling back to the resource's URI with paths stripped off (its
      "Origin").  In contrast to that, [RFC8288] Section B.2 describes
      that the anchor is immaterial to the resolution of the target
      reference.

      RFC6690, in the same section, also states that absent anchors set
      the context of the link to the target's URI with its path stripped
      off, while according to [RFC8288] Section 3.2, the context is the
      resource's base URI.

      The rules introduced in Appendix C ensure that an RD does not need
      to deal with those differences when processing input data.  Lookup
      results are required to be absolute references for the same
      reason.

   *  There is no percent encoding in link-format documents.

      A link-format document is a UTF-8 encoded string of Unicode
      characters and does not have percent encoding, while Link header
      fields are practically ASCII strings that use percent encoding for
      non-ASCII characters, stating the encoding explicitly when
      required.

      For example, while a Link header field in a page about a Swedish
      city might read

      Link: </temperature/Malm%C3%B6>;rel="live-environment-data"

      a link-format document from the same source might describe the
      link as

      </temperature/Malmö>;rel="live-environment-data"

      Parsers and producers of link-format and header fields need to be
      aware of this difference.

Appendix C.  Limited Link Format

   The CoRE Link Format as described in [RFC6690] has been interpreted
   differently by implementers, and a strict implementation rules out
   some use cases of an RD (e.g. base values with path components).

   This appendix describes a subset of link format documents called
   Limited Link Format.  The rules herein are not very limiting in
   practice - all examples in RFC6690, and all deployments the authors
   are aware of already stick to them - but ease the implementation of
   RD servers.




Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 81]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   It is applicable to representations in the application/link-format
   media type, and any other media types that inherit [RFC6690]
   Section 2.1.

   A link format representation is in Limited Link format if, for each
   link in it, the following applies:

   *  All URI references either follow the URI or the path-absolute ABNF
      rule of RFC3986 (i.e. target and anchor each either start with a
      scheme or with a single slash),

   *  if the anchor reference starts with a scheme, the target reference
      starts with a scheme as well (i.e. relative references in target
      cannot be used when the anchor is a full URI), and

   *  the application does not care whether links without an explicitly
      given anchor have the origin's "/" or "/.well-known/core" resource
      as their link context.

Authors' Addresses

   Zach Shelby
   ARM
   150 Rose Orchard
   San Jose,  95134
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-408-203-9434
   Email: zach.shelby@arm.com


   Michael Koster
   SmartThings
   665 Clyde Avenue
   Mountain View,  94043
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-707-502-5136
   Email: Michael.Koster@smartthings.com


   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921



Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 82]


Internet-Draft           CoRE Resource Directory               July 2020


   Email: cabo@tzi.org


   Peter van der Stok
   consultant

   Phone: +31-492474673 (Netherlands), +33-966015248 (France)
   Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org
   URI:   www.vanderstok.org


   Christian Amsüss (editor)
   Hollandstr. 12/4
   1020
   Austria

   Phone: +43-664-9790639
   Email: christian@amsuess.com

































Shelby, et al.           Expires 14 January 2021               [Page 83]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/