CoRE Working Group A. Castellani
Internet-Draft University of Padova
Intended status: Informational S. Loreto
Expires: January 12, 2012 Ericsson
A. Rahman
InterDigital Communications, LLC
T. Fossati
KoanLogic
E. Dijk
Philips Research
July 11, 2011
Best practices for HTTP-CoAP mapping implementation
draft-castellani-core-http-mapping-01
Abstract
This draft aims at being a base reference documentation for HTTP-CoAP
proxy implementors. It details deployment options, discusses
possible approaches for URI mapping, and provides useful
considerations related to protocol translation.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Cross-protocol resource identification using URIs . . . . . . 5
3.1. URI mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Homogeneous mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Embedded mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. HTTP-CoAP implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Placement and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Basic mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Caching and congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Use case: HTTP/IPv4-CoAP/IPv6 proxy . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Multiple message exchanges mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.1. Relevant features of existing standards . . . . . . . 13
4.3.2. Multicast mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Subscription mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. CoAP-HTTP implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Traffic overflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. Cross-protocol security policy mapping . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Handling secured exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. Spoofing and Cache Poisoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5. Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Internal Mapping Functions (from an implementer's
perspective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.1. URL Map Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.2. Security Policy Map Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3. Content-Type Map Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
1. Introduction
RESTful protocols, such as HTTP [RFC2616] and CoAP
[I-D.ietf-core-coap], can interoperate through an intermediary proxy
which performs cross-protocol mapping.
A reference about the mapping process is provided in Section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]. However, depending on the involved
application, deployment scenario, or network topology, such mapping
could be realized using a wide range of intermediaries.
Moreover, the process of implementing such a proxy could be complex,
and details regarding its internal procedures and design choices
deserve further discussion, which is provided in this document.
This draft is organized as follows:
o Section 2 describes terminology to identify different mapping
approaches and the related proxy deployments;
o Section 3 discusses impact of the mapping on URI and describes
notable options;
o Section 4 and Section 5 respectively analyze the mapping from HTTP
to CoAP and viceversa;
o Section 6 discusses possible security impact related to the
mapping.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
A device providing cross-protocol HTTP-CoAP mapping is called an
HTTP-CoAP cross-protocol proxy (HC proxy).
Regular HTTP proxies are usually same-protocol proxies, because they
can map from HTTP to HTTP. CoAP same-protocol proxies are
intermediaries for CoAP to CoAP exchanges. However the discussion
about these entities is out-of-scope of this document.
At least two different kinds of HC proxies exist:
o One-way cross-protocol proxy (1-way proxy): This proxy translates
from a client of a protocol to a server of another protocol but
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
not vice-versa.
o Two-way (or bidirectional) cross-protocol proxy (2-way proxy):
This proxy translates from a client of both protocols to a server
supporting one protocol.
1-way and 2-way HC proxies are realized using the following general
types of proxies:
Forward proxy (F): Is a proxy known by the client (either CoAP or
HTTP) used to access a specific cross-protocol server
(respectively HTTP or CoAP). Main feature: server(s) do not
require to be known in advance by the proxy (ZSC: Zero Server
Configuration).
Reverse proxy (R): Is a proxy known by the client to be the server,
however for a subset of resources it works as a proxy, by knowing
the real server(s) serving each resource. When a cross-protocol
resource is accessed by a client, the request will be silently
forwarded by the reverse proxy to the real server (running a
different protocol). If a response is received by the reverse
proxy, it will be mapped, if possible, to the original protocol
and sent back to the client. Main feature: client(s) do not
require to be known in advance by the proxy (ZCC: Zero Client
Configuration).
Transparent (or Intercepting) proxy (I): This proxy can intercept
any origin protocol request (HTTP or CoAP) and map it to the
destination protocol, without any kind of knowledge about the
client or server involved in the exchange. Main feature:
client(s) and server(s) do not require to be known in advance by
the proxy (ZCC and ZSC).
The proxy can be placed in the network at three different logical
locations:
Server-side proxy (SS): A proxy placed on the same network domain of
the server;
Client-side proxy (CS): A proxy placed on the same network domain of
the client;
External proxy (E): A proxy placed in a network domain external to
both endpoints, it is in the network domain neither of the client
nor of the server.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
3. Cross-protocol resource identification using URIs
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) provides a simple and extensible
means for identifying a resource. It enables uniform identification
of resources via a separately defined extensible set of naming
schemes [RFC3986].
URIs are formed of at least three components: scheme, authority and
path. The scheme is the first part of the URI, and it often
corresponds to the protocol used to access the resource. However, as
noted in Section 1.2.2 of [RFC3986] the scheme does not imply that a
particular protocol is used to access the resource.
Clients supporting a protocol that uses URIs to identify target
resources (e.g. HTTP web browsers), may support the resolution of a
limited set of schemes (i.e. "http:", "https:"). When such clients
want to interoperate with resources available in another protocol
(cross-protocol resources, e.g. CoAP), the existence of a URI
identifying the requested resource in a scheme natively supported by
the client, is useful for interoperability with clients handling only
the supported schemes.
Both CoAP and HTTP expose resources through a REST interface, so the
same resource can be made available in both protocols by simply
applying protocol translation. To this end the protocol by which the
resource is actually served is not relevant at all for a client.
In general two different methods can be used to access cross-protocol
resources, i.e. resources offered by a server using a protocol (e.g.
HTTP) different from the one supported by the client (e.g. CoAP),
Protocol-aware access: The client accesses the cross-protocol
resource using the URI with the native scheme using a cross-
protocol proxy (e.g. uses coap: scheme URI embedded in the HTTP
proxy request); both CoAP and HTTP support this access method.
HTTP defines that proxy or servers MUST accept even an absolute-
URI as request-target, see Section 4.1.2 of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]. CoAP provides Proxy-URI option
having absolute-URI as value, see Section 5.10.3 of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
Protocol-agnostic access: The client accesses the cross-protocol
resource as if it were available in the protocol supported by the
client (e.g. uses "http:" scheme to access a CoAP resource), the
actual protocol translation is provided by a cross-protocol proxy.
In order to use this method a URI identifying an equivalent
resource MUST exist.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
No URI mapping is required when using protocol-aware access, the
following section is focused on URI mapping techniques for protocol-
agnostic access.
3.1. URI mapping
When accessing cross-protocol resources in a protocol-agnostic way,
clients MUST use an URI with a scheme supported by the client and
serving to them an equivalent resource.
Because determination of equivalence or difference of URIs (e.g.
whether or not they identify the same resource) is based on string
comparison, URI domains using "coap:" and "http:" scheme are fully
distinct: resources identified by the same authority and path tuple
change when switching the scheme.
Example: Assume that the following resource exists -
"coap://node.coap.something.net/foo". The resource identified by
"http://node.coap.something.net/foo" may not exist or be not-
equivalent to the one identified by the "coap:" scheme.
If a cross-protocol URI exists providing an equivalent representation
of the native protocol resource, it can be available at a completely
different URI (in terms of authority and path). The mapping of an
URI between HTTP and CoAP is said HC URI mapping.
Example: The HC URI mapping to HTTP of the CoAP resource identified
by "coap://node.coap.something.net/foo" is
"http://node.something.net/foobar".
The HC URI mapping of a resource could be complex in general, and a
proper mechanism to statically or dynamically (discover) map the
resource HC URI mapping MAY be required.
Two methods are proposed in the following subsections, that could in
general reduce the complexity related to URI mapping.
3.1.1. Homogeneous mapping
The URI mapping between CoAP and HTTP is called homogeneous when the
resource can be identified either using "http:", or "coap:" scheme
without changing neither the authority or path.
Example: The CoAP resource "//node.coap.something.net/foo" can be
accessed using CoAP at the URI "coap://node.coap.something.net/foo",
and using HTTP at the URI "http://node.coap.something.net/foo". When
the resource is accessed using HTTP, the mapping from HTTP to CoAP is
performed by an HC proxy
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
When homogeneous HC URI mapping is available HC-Intercepting (HC-I)
proxies are easily implementable.
3.1.2. Embedded mapping
The mapping is said to be embedded, if the HC URI mapping of the
resource embeds inside it the authority and path part of the native
URI.
Example: The CoAP resource "coap://node.coap.something.net/foo" can
be accessed at
"http://hc-proxy.something.net/coap/node.coap.something.net/foo" or
at "http://node.coap.something.net.hc-proxy.something.net/foo".
It is usually selected to minimize mapping complexity in an HC
reverse proxy.
4. HTTP-CoAP implementation
4.1. Placement and deployment
In typical scenarios the HC proxy is expected to be server-side (SS),
in particular deployed at the edge of the constrained network.
The arguments supporting SS placement are the following:
TCP/UDP: Translation between HTTP and CoAP requires also a TCP to
UDP mapping; UDP performance over the unconstrained Internet may
not be adequate. In order to minimize the number of required
retransmissions and overall reliability, TCP/UDP conversion SHOULD
be performed at a SS placed proxy.
Caching: Efficient caching requires that all the CoAP traffic is
intercepted by the same proxy, thus an SS placement, collecting
all the traffic, is strategical for this need.
Multicast: To support using local-multicast functionalities
available in the constrained network, the HC proxy MAY require a
network interface directly attached to the constrained network.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
+------+
| |
| DNS |
| |
+------+
--------------------
// \\
/ /---\ /---\ \
/ CoAP CoAP \
|| \---/ \---/ ||
+---------+ ||
| | /---\||
|HTTP/CoAP| CoAP ||
| | \---/||
+------+ +---------+ ||
|HTTP | || /---\ ||
|Client| || CoAP ||
+------+ \ \---/ /
\ /---\ /
\ CoAP /
\\ \---/ //
------------------
Figure 1: Server-side HC proxy deployment scenario
Other important aspects involved in the selection of which type of
proxy deployment, whose choice impacts its placement too, are the
following:
Client/Proxy/Network configuration overhead: Forward proxies require
either static configuration or discovery support in every client.
Reverse proxies require either static configuration, server
discovery or embedded URI mapping in the proxy. Intercepting
proxies typically require single router configuration for a whole
network.
Scalability/Availability: Both aspects are typically addressed using
redundancy. CS deployments, due to the limited catchment area and
administrative-wide domain of operation, have looser requirements
on this. SS deployments, in dense/popular/critical environments,
have stricter requirements and MAY need to be replicated.
Stateful proxies (e.g. reverse) may be complex to replicate.
Discussion about security impacts of different deployments is covered
in Section 6.
Table 1 shows some interesting HC proxy deployment scenarios, and
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
notes the advantages related to each scenario.
+--------------------------+------+------+------+
| Feature | F CS | R SS | I SS |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+
| TCP/UDP | - | + | + |
| Multicast | - | + | + |
| Caching | - | + | + |
| Scalability/Availability | + | +/- | + |
| Configuration | - | - | + |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+
Table 1: Interesting HC proxy deployments
Guidelines proposed in the previous paragraphs have been used to fill
out the above table. In the first three rows, it can be seen that SS
deployment is preferred versus CS. Scalability/Availability issues
can be generally handled, but some complexity may be involved in
reverse proxies scenarios. Configuration overhead could be
simplified when intercepting proxies deployments are feasible.
When support for legacy HTTP clients is required, it may be
preferrable using configuration/discovery free deployments.
Discovery procedures for client or proxy auto-configuration are still
under active-discussion: see [I-D.vanderstok-core-bc],
[I-D.bormann-core-simple-server-discovery] or
[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory]. Static configuration of
multiple forward proxies is typically not feasible in existing HTTP
clients.
4.2. Basic mapping
The mapping of HTTP requests to CoAP and of the response back to HTTP
is defined in Section 8.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-coap].
The mapping of a CoAP response code to HTTP is not straightforward,
this mapping MUST be operated accordingly to Table 4 of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
No upper bound is defined for a CoAP server to provide the response,
thus for long delays the HTTP client or any other proxy in between
MAY timeout, further considerations are available in Section 7.1.4 of
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging].
The HC proxy MUST define an internal timeout for each CoAP request
pending, because the CoAP server MAY silently die before completing
the request.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
Even if the DNS protocol may not be used inside the constrained
network, maintaining valid DNS entries describing the hosts available
on such network helps offering the CoAP resources to HTTP clients.
An example of the usefulness of such entries is described in
Section 4.2.2.
HTTP connection pipe-lining is transparent to the CoAP network, the
HC proxy will sequentially serve the requests by issuing different
CoAP requests.
4.2.1. Caching and congestion control
The HC proxy SHOULD limit the number of requests to CoAP servers by
responding, where applicable, with a cached representation of the
resource.
In the case of a multicast request, because of the inherent
unreliable nature of the NON messages involved, and dynamic
membership of multicast groups, immediately responding only with
previously cached responses and without issuing a new request to the
multicast group, could lead to duplicate partial representations of
the multicast resource.
Duplicate idempotent pending requests to the same resource SHOULD in
general be avoided, by duplexing the response to the relevant hosts
without duplicating the request.
If the HTTP client times out and drops the HTTP session to the proxy
(closing the TCP connection), the HC proxy SHOULD wait for the
response and cache it if possible. Further idempotent requests to
the same resource can use the result present in cache, or if a
response has still to come requests will wait on the open CoAP
session.
Traffic related to resources experiencing a recurrently high access
rate MAY be reduced by establishing with that resources an observe
session [I-D.ietf-core-observe], that will keep updated the cached
representation of the target resource.
Depending upon the particular deployment MAY exist server or
resources highly impacted by congestion, i.e. multicast resources
(see Section 4.3.2), popular servers. Careful considerations are
required about the caching policies for those resources, also
considering possible security implications related to those specific
targets.
To this end when traffic reduction obtained by the caching mechanism
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
is not adequate, the HC proxy could apply stricter policing by
limiting the amount of aggregate traffic to the constrained network.
More specifically the HC proxy SHOULD pose a strict upper limit to
the number of concurrent CoAP request pending directed to the same
constrained network, further request MAY either be queued or dropped.
In order to successfully apply this congestion control, the HC proxy
SHOULD be SS placed.
Further discussion on congestion control can be found in
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control].
4.2.2. Use case: HTTP/IPv4-CoAP/IPv6 proxy
This section covers the expected common use case of when an HTTP/IPv4
client desires to get access to a CoAP/IPv6 resource.
Whereas HTTP/IPv4 is today the most widely adopted communication in
the Internet, a pervasive deployment of constrained nodes exploiting
the IPv6 address space is expected.
Enabling direct interoperability of such technologies is valuable.
An HC proxy supporting IPv4/IPv6 mapping is said to be a v4/v6 proxy.
An HC v4/v6 proxy SHOULD always try to resolve the URI authority, and
SHOULD prefer using the IPv6 resolution if available. The authority
section of the URI is thus used internally by the HC proxy and SHOULD
not be mapped to CoAP.
Figure 2 shows an HTTP client on IPv4 (C) accessing a CoAP server on
IPv6 (S) through an HC proxy on IPv4/IPv6 (P).
"node.coap.something.net" has an A record containing the IPv4 address
of the HC proxy, and an AAAA record containing the IPv6 of the CoAP
server.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
C P S
| | |
| | | Source: IPv4 of C
| | | Destination: IPv4 of P
+---->| | GET /foo HTTP/1.1
| | | Host: node.coap.something.net
| | | ..other HTTP headers ..
| | |
| | | Source: IPv6 of P
| | | Destination: IPv6 of S
| +---->| CON GET
| | | URI-Path: foo
| | |
| | | Source: IPv6 of S
| | | Destination: IPv6 of P
| |<----+ ACK
| | |
| | | ... Time passes ...
| | |
| | | Source: IPv6 of S
| | | Destination: IPv6 of P
| |<----+ CON 2.00
| | | "bar"
| | |
| | | Source: IPv6 of P
| | | Destination: IPv6 of S
| +---->| ACK
| | |
| | | Source: IPv4 of P
| | | Destination: IPv4 of C
|<----+ | HTTP/1.1 200 OK
| | | .. other HTTP headers ..
| | |
| | | bar
| | |
Figure 2: HTTP/IPv4 to CoAP/IPv6 mapping
The proposed example shows the HC proxy operating also the mapping
between IPv4 to IPv6 using the authority information available in any
HTTP 1.1 request. Thus IPv6 connectivity is not required at the HTTP
client when accessing a CoAP server over IPv6 only, which is a
typical expected use case.
When P is an intercepting HC proxy, the CoAP request SHOULD have the
IPv6 address of C as source (IPv4 can always be mapped into IPv6).
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
The described solution takes into account only the HTTP/IPv4 clients
accessing CoAP/IPv6 servers; this solution does not provide a full
fledged mapping from HTTP to CoAP.
In order to obtain a working deployment for HTTP/IPv6 clients, a
different HC proxy access method may be required, or Internet AAAA
records should not point to the node anymore (the HC proxy should use
a different DNS database pointing to the node).
When an HC intercepting proxy deployment is used this solution is
fully working even with HTTP/IPv6 clients.
4.3. Multiple message exchanges mapping
This section discusses the mapping of some advanced CoAP features
(e.g. multicast, observe) to HTTP which involves the need to
asynchronously deliver multiple responses within the same HTTP
request.
4.3.1. Relevant features of existing standards
Various features provided by existing standards are useful to
efficiently represent sessions involving multiple messages.
4.3.1.1. Multipart messages
In particular the "multipart/*" media type, defined in Section 5.1 of
[RFC2046], is a suitable solution to deliver multiple CoAP responses
within a single HTTP payload. Each part of a multipart entity SHOULD
be represented using "message/http" media type containing the full
mapping of a single CoAP response as previously described.
4.3.1.2. Immediate message delivery
An HC proxy may prefer to transfer each CoAP response immediately
after its reception. This is possible thanks to the HTTP Transfer-
Encoding "chunked", that enables transferring single responses
without any further delay.
A detailed discussion on the use of chunked Transfer-Encoding to
stream data over HTTP can be found in [RFC6202]. Large delays
between chunks can lead the HTTP session to timeout, more details on
this issue can be found in [I-D.thomson-hybi-http-timeout].
The HC proxy MAY reduce internal buffering by providing responses to
HTTP client without any delay; each CoAP response can be immediately
streamed using HTTP chunked Transfer-Encoding. This chunked encoding
was not shown in order to simplify Figure 3, where the proxy returns
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
all responses in one payload after a timeout expires. An example
showing immediate delivery of CoAP responses using chunks is provided
in Section 4.3.3, while describing its application to an observe
session.
4.3.1.3. Detailing source information
Under some circumstance responses may come from different sources
(i.e. responses to a multicast request); in this case details about
the actual source of each CoAP response SHOULD be provided to the
client. Source information can be represented using HTTP Web Linking
as defined in [RFC5988], by adding the actual source URI into each
response using Link option with "via" relation type.
4.3.2. Multicast mapping
In order to establish a multicast communication such a feature should
be offered either by the network (i.e. IP multicast, link-layer
multicast, etc.) or by a gateway (i.e. the HC proxy). Rationale on
the methods available to obtain such a feature is out-of-scope of
this document, and extensive discussion of group communication
techniques is available in [I-D.rahman-core-groupcomm].
Additional considerations related to handling multicast requests
mapping are detailed in the following sections.
4.3.2.1. URI identification and mapping
In order to successfully handle a multicast request, the HC proxy
MUST successfully perform the following tasks on the URI:
Identification: The HC proxy MUST understand whether the requested
URI identifies a group of nodes.
Mapping: The HC proxy MUST know how to distribute the multicast
request to involved servers; this process is specific of the group
communication technology used.
When using IPv6 multicast paired with DNS, the mapping to IPv6
multicast is simply done using DNS resolution. If the group
management is performed at the proxy, the URI or part of it (i.e. the
authority) can be mapped using some static or dynamic table available
at the HC proxy. In Section 3.5 of [I-D.rahman-core-groupcomm]
discusses a method to build and maintain a local table of multicast
authorities.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
4.3.2.2. Request handling
When the HC proxy receives a request to a URI that has been
successfully identified and mapped to a group of nodes, it SHOULD
start a multicast proxying operation, if supported by the proxy.
Multicast request handling consists of the following steps:
Multicast TX: The HC proxy sends out the request on the CoAP side by
using the methods offered by the specific group communication
technology used in the constrained network;
Collecting RXs: The HC proxy collects every response related to the
request;
Timeout: The HC proxy will pay special attention in multicast
timing, detailed discussion about timing depends upon the
particular group communication technology used;
Distributing RXs to the client: The HC proxy can distribute the
responses in two different ways: batch delivering them at the end
of the process or on timeout, or immediately delivering them as
they are available. Batch requires more caching and introduces
delays but may lead to lower TCP overhead and simpler processing.
Immediate is the converse. A trade-off solution of partial batch
delivery may also be feasible and efficient in some circumstances.
4.3.2.3. Example
Figure 3 shows an HTTP client (C) requesting the resource "/foo" to a
group of CoAP servers (S1/S2/S3) through an HC proxy (P) which uses
IP multicast to send the corresponding CoAP request.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
C P S1 S2 S3
| | | | |
+---->| | | | GET /foo HTTP/1.1
| | | | | Host: group-of-nodes.coap.something.net
| | | | | .. other HTTP headers ..
| | | | |
| +---->|---->|---->| NON GET
| | | | | URI-Path: foo
| | | | |
| |<----------+ | NON 2.00
| | | | | "S2"
| | | | |
| | X---------------+ NON 2.00
| | | | | "S3"
| | | | |
| |<----+ | | NON 2.00
| | | | | "S1"
| | | | |
| | | | | ... Timeout ...
| | | | |
|<----+ | | | HTTP/1.1 200 OK
| | | | | Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="response"
| | | | | .. other HTTP headers ..
| | | | |
| | | | | --response
| | | | | Content-Type: message/http
| | | | |
| | | | | HTTP/1.1 200 OK
| | | | | Link: <http://node2.coap.something.net/foo>; rel=via
| | | | |
| | | | | S2
| | | | |
| | | | | --response
| | | | | Content-Type: message/http
| | | | |
| | | | | HTTP/1.1 200 OK
| | | | | Link: <http://node1.coap.something.net/foo>; rel=via
| | | | |
| | | | | S1
| | | | |
| | | | | --response--
| | | | |
Figure 3: Unicast HTTP to multicast CoAP mapping
The example proposed in the above diagram does not make any
assumption on which underlying group communication technology is
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
available in the constrained network. Some detailed discussion is
provided about it along the following lines.
C makes a GET request to group-of-nodes.coap.something.net. This
domain name MAY either resolve to the address of P, or to the IPv6
multicast address of the nodes (if IP multicast is supported and P is
an intercepting proxy), or the proxy P is specifically known by the
client that sends this request to it.
To successfully start multicast proxying operation, the HC proxy MUST
know that the destination URI involves a group of CoAP servers, e.g.
the authority group-of-nodes.coap.something.net is known to identify
a group of nodes either by using an internal lookup table, using DNS
paired with IPv6 multicast, or by using some other special technique.
A specific implementation option is proposed to further explain the
proposed example. Assume that DNS is configured such that all
subdomain queries to coap.something.net, such as group-of-
nodes.coap.something.net, resolve to the address of P. P performs the
HC URI mapping by removing the "coap" subdomain from the authority
and by switching the scheme from "http" to "coap" (result:
"coap://group-of-node.something.net/foo"); "group-of-
nodes.something.net" is resolved to an IPv6 multicast address to
which S1, S2 and S3 belong. The proxy handles this request as
multicast and sends the request "GET /foo" to the multicast group .
4.3.3. Subscription mapping
TBD
5. CoAP-HTTP implementation
Discussion about CoAP-HTTP mapping implementation considerations is
available in Section 3 of [I-D.hartke-core-coap-http].
6. Security Considerations
The security concerns raised in Section 15.7 of [RFC2616] also apply
to the HC proxy scenario. In fact, the HC proxy is a trusted (not
rarely a transparently trusted) component in the network path. Also,
a reverse proxy deployed at the boundary of constrained network is an
easy single point of failure for reducing availability. As such, a
special care should be taken in designing, developing and operating
it. In most cases it could have fewer constraints than the
constrained devices.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
The following sub paragraphs categorize and argue about a set of
specific security issues related to the translation, caching and
forwarding functionality exposed by an HC proxy module.
6.1. Traffic overflow
Due to the generally constrained nature of a CoAP network, particular
attention SHOULD be posed in the implementation of traffic reduction
mechanisms (see Section 4.2.1), because inefficient implementations
can be targeted by unconstrained Internet attackers. Bandwidth or
complexity involved in such attacks is very low.
An amplification attack to the constrained network MAY be triggered
by a multicast request generated by a single HTTP request mapped to a
CoAP multicast resource, as considered in Section XX of
[I-D.ietf-core-coap].
The impact of this amplification technique is higher than an
amplification attack carried out by a malicious constrained device
(i.e. ICMPv6 flooding, like Packet Too Big, or Parameter Problem on
a multicast destination [RFC4732]), since it does not require direct
access to the constrained network.
The feasibility of this attack, disruptive in terms of CoAP server
availability, can be limited by access controlling the exposed HTTP
multicast resource, so that only known/authorized users access such
URIs.
6.2. Cross-protocol security policy mapping
At the moment of this writing, CoAP and HTTP are missing any cross-
protocol security policy mapping.
The HC proxy SHOULD flexibly support security policies between the
two protocols, possibly as part of the HC URI mapping function, in
order to statically map HTTP and CoAP security policies at the proxy
(see Appendix A.2 for an example.)
6.3. Handling secured exchanges
It is possible that the request from the client to the HC proxy is
sent over a secured connection. However, there may or may not exist
a secure connection mapping to the other protocol. For example, a
secure distribution method for multicast traffic is complex and MAY
not be implemented (see [I-D.rahman-core-groupcomm]).
An HC proxy SHOULD reject secured request if there is not a
corresponding secure mapping. The HC proxy MAY still decide to
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
process an incoming secured request, even in the absence of a secure
mapping.
Example: Assume that CoAP nodes are isolated behind a secure firewall
(e.g. as the SS HC proxy deployment shown in Figure 1), and the HC
proxy cannot perform any secure CoAP mapping. In this scenario, the
HC proxy may be configured to translate anyway the incoming HTTPS
request using CoAP NoSec mode, as the internal CoAP network is
believed to be secure.
The HC URI mapping MUST NOT map to HTTP (see Section 3.1) a CoAP
resource intended to be accessed only using HTTPS.
A secured connection that is terminated at the HC proxy, i.e. the
proxy decrypts secured data locally, raises an ambiguity about the
cacheability of the requested resource. The HC proxy SHOULD NOT
cache any secured content to avoid any leak of secured information.
However in some specific scenario, a security/efficiency trade-off
could motivate caching secured information; in that case the caching
behavior MAY be tuned to some extent on a per-resource basis (see
Section 6.2).
6.4. Spoofing and Cache Poisoning
In web security jargon, the "cache poisoning" verb accounts for
attacks where an evil user causes the proxy server to associate
incorrect content to a cached resource, which work through especially
crafted HTTP requests or request/response combos.
When working in CoAP NoSec mode, the use of UDP makes cache poisoning
on the constrained network easy and effective, simple address
spoofing by a malicious host is sufficient to perform the attack.
The implicit broadcast nature of typical link-layer communication
technologies used in constrained networks lead this attack to be
easily performed by any host, even without the requirement of being a
router in the network. The ultimate outcome depends on both the
order of arrival of packets (legitimate and rogue); attackers
targeting this weakness may have less requirements on timing, thus
leading the attack to succeed with high probability.
In case the threat of a rogue mote acting in the constrained network
can't be winded up by appropriate procedural means, the only way to
avoid such attacks is for any CoAP server to work at least in
MultiKey mode with a 1:1 key with the HC proxy. SharedKey mode would
just mitigate the attack, since a guessable MIDs and Tokens
generation function at the HC proxy side would make it feasible for
the evil mote to implement a "try until succeed" strategy. Also,
(authenticated) encryption at a lower layer (MAC/PHY) could be
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
defeated by a slightly more powerful attacker, a compromised router
mote.
6.5. Subscription
As noted in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-core-observe], when using the
observe pattern, an attacker could easily impose resource exhaustion
on a naive server who's indiscriminately accepting observer
relationships establishment from clients. The converse of this
problem is also present, a malicious client may also target the HC
proxy itself, by trying to exhaust the HTTP connection limit of the
proxy by opening multiple subscriptions to some CoAP resource.
Effective strategies to reduce success of such a DoS on the HTTP side
(by forcing prior identification of the HTTP client via usual web
authentication mechanisms), must always be weighted against an
acceptable level of usability of the exposed CoAP resources.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Klaus Hartke, Zach Shelby, Carsten Bormann, Michele Rossi,
Nicola Bui, Michele Zorzi, Peter Saint-Andre, Cullen Jennings, Kepeng
Li, Brian Frank, Peter Van Der Stok, Kerry Lynn, Linyi Tian, Dorothy
Gellert for helpful comments and discussions that have shaped the
document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-coap]
Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-ietf-core-coap-06 (work in progress), May 2011.
[I-D.ietf-core-observe]
Hartke, K. and Z. Shelby, "Observing Resources in CoAP",
draft-ietf-core-observe-02 (work in progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging]
Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., and J. Reschke,
"HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message
Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-14 (work in
progress), April 2011.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
[I-D.rahman-core-groupcomm]
Rahman, A. and E. Dijk, "Group Communication for CoAP",
draft-rahman-core-groupcomm-05 (work in progress),
May 2011.
[I-D.thomson-hybi-http-timeout]
Thomson, M., Loreto, S., and G. Wilkins, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Timeouts",
draft-thomson-hybi-http-timeout-00 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.bormann-core-simple-server-discovery]
Bormann, C., "CoRE Simple Server Discovery",
draft-bormann-core-simple-server-discovery-00 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control]
Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)",
draft-eggert-core-congestion-control-01 (work in
progress), January 2011.
[I-D.hartke-core-coap-http]
Hartke, K., "Accessing HTTP resources over CoAP",
draft-hartke-core-coap-http-00 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[I-D.shelby-core-resource-directory]
Shelby, Z. and S. Krco, "CoRE Resource Directory",
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
draft-shelby-core-resource-directory-00 (work in
progress), June 2011.
[I-D.vanderstok-core-bc]
Stok, P. and K. Lynn, "CoAP Utilization for Building
Control", draft-vanderstok-core-bc-03 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[RFC4732] Handley, M., Rescorla, E., and IAB, "Internet Denial-of-
Service Considerations", RFC 4732, December 2006.
[RFC6202] Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., and G. Wilkins,
"Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long
Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP", RFC 6202,
April 2011.
Appendix A. Internal Mapping Functions (from an implementer's
perspective)
At least three mapping functions have been identified, which take
place at different stages of the HC proxy processing chain, involving
the URL, Content-Type and Security Policy translation.
All these maps are required to have at least URL granularity so that,
in principle, each and every requested URL may be treated as an
independent mapping source.
In the following, the said map functions are characterized via their
expected input and output, and a simple, yet sufficiently rich,
configuration syntax is suggested.
In the spirit of a document providing implementation guidance, the
specification of a map grammar aims at putting the basis for a
reusable software component (e.g. a stand-alone C library) that many
different proxy implementations can link to, and benefit from.
A.1. URL Map Algorithm
In case the HC proxy is a reverse proxy, i.e. it acts as the origin
server in face of the served network, the URL of the resource
requested by its clients (perhaps having an 'http' scheme) shall be
mapped to the real resource origin (perhaps in the 'coap' scheme).
In case HC is a forward proxy, no URL translation is needed since the
client already knows the "real name" of the resource.
A transparent HC proxy, instead, is forced to use the homogeneous
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
mapping strategy (see Section 3.1.1 for details) to let its clients
access the needed resources.
As noted in Appendix B of [RFC3986] any correctly formatted URL can
be matched by a POSIX regular expression. By leveraging on this
property, we suggest a syntax that describes the URL mapping in terms
of substituting the regex-matching portions of the requested URL into
the mapped URL template.
E.g.: given the source regular expression
'^http://example.com/coap/.*$' and destination template 'coap://1ドル'
(where 1ドル stands for the first - and only in this specific case -
substring matched by the regex pattern in the source), the input URL
"http://example.com/coap/node1/resource2" translates to
"coap://node1/resource2".
This is a well established technique used in many todays web
components (e.g. Django URL dispatcher, Apache mod_rewrite, etc.),
which provides a compact and powerful engine to implement what
essentially is an URL rewrite function.
INPUT
* requested URL
OUTPUT
* target URL
SYNTAX
url_map [rule name] {
requested_url <regex>
mapped_url <regex match subst template>
}
EXAMPLE 1
url_map homogeneous {
requested_url '^http://.*$'
mapped_url 'coap//1ドル'
}
EXAMPLE 2
url_map embedded {
requested_url '^http://example.com/coap/.*$'
mapped_url 'coap//1ドル'
}
Note that many different url_map records may be given in order to
build the whole mapping function. Each of these records can be
queried (in some predefined order) by the HC proxy until a match is
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
found, or the list is exhausted. In the latter case, depending on
the mapping policy (only internal, internal then external, etc.) the
original request can be refused, or the same mapping query is
forwarded to one or more external URL mapping components.
A.2. Security Policy Map Algorithm
In case the "incoming" URL has been successfully translated, the HC
proxy must lookup the security policy, if any, that needs to be
applied to the request/response transaction carried on the "outgoing"
leg.
INPUT
* target URL (after URL map has been applied)
* original requester identity (given by cookie, or IP address, or
crypto credentials/security context, etc.)
OUTPUT
* security context that will be applied to access the target URL
SYNTAX
sec_map [rule name] {
target_url <regex> -- one or more
requester_id [TBD]
sec_context [TBD]
}
EXAMPLE
[TBD]
A.3. Content-Type Map Algorithm
In case a set of destination URLs is known as being limited in
handling a narrow subset of mime types, a content-type map can be
configured in order to let the HC proxy transparently handle the
compatible/lossless format translation.
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
INPUT
* destination URL (after URL map has been applied)
* original content-type
OUTPUT
* mapped content-type
SYNTAX
ct_map {
target_url <regex> -- one or more targetURLs
ct_switch <source_ct, dest_ct> -- one or more CTs
}
EXAMPLE
ct_map {
target_url '^coap://class-1-device/.*$'
ct_switch */xml application/exi
}
Authors' Addresses
Angelo P. Castellani
University of Padova
Via Gradenigo 6/B
Padova 35131
Italy
Email: angelo@castellani.net
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com
Akbar Rahman
InterDigital Communications, LLC
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft HTTP-CoAP mapping July 2011
Thomas Fossati
KoanLogic
Via di Sabbiuno 11/5
Bologna 40136
Italy
Phone: +39 051 644 82 68
Email: tho@koanlogic.com
Esko Dijk
Philips Research
Email: esko.dijk@philips.com
Castellani, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 26]