Re: [core] #389 (coap-tcp-tls): Version negotiation

Bill Silverajan <bilhanan.silverajan@tut.fi> Tue, 15 December 2015 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bilhanan.silverajan@tut.fi>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65541A901C; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:52:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j99LHQe-nN_1; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw-out1.cc.tut.fi (mail-gw-out1.cc.tut.fi [130.230.160.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302461A9039; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 07:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 82e6a020-e13ff700000008c3-90-5669d88cf519
Received: from mail1.tut.fi (mail1.tut.fi [130.230.162.19]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E1.20.02243.C88D9665; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:54:52 +0200 (EET)
Received: from Bilhanans-MBP.P-661HNU-F1 (a88-113-51-254.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.113.51.254]) by mail1.tut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 916AB40160; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:54:52 +0200 (EET)
To: draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls@ietf.org, hartke@tzi.org
References: <054.3b28ae9836a9adbe6ce0269929f27b0f@trac.tools.ietf.org>
From: Bill Silverajan <bilhanan.silverajan@tut.fi>
Message-ID: <5669D88C.50306@tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:54:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <054.3b28ae9836a9adbe6ce0269929f27b0f@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrOIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXS9GyRsG7Pjcwwg+7vhhb73q5ntvgzcTGj xbbJr5gcmD2WLPnJ5DFtUWYAUxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrYzfSwFD7gqnrSvYWtgPMDRxcjB ISFgInGiLaWLkYtDSGA5o8T1DxdYIZx9jBKXJk1g7GLk5BAWsJGYdHwHG4gtImApsWzCKRaQ ZiEBN4kjU/RAwswCghJHbu5lBrHZBIwkDnzbxAJi8wooS1yauRosziKgKrF/7UtWEFtUIE3i 27ouZogaQYmTM5+A1XMKuEuceniKHWKmrcSdubuZIWx5ie1v5zBPYOSfhaRlFpKyWUjKFjAy r2IUy03MzNFNL9fNLy0x1EtO1ispLdFLy9zECA7DBQo7GF9O0z/EKMDBqMTDu+JIZpgQa2JZ cWXuIUZJDiYlUd7tB4FCfEn5KZUZicUZ8UWlOanFhxglOJiVRHi/7wTK8aYkVlalFuXDpKQ5 WJTEeUv9NUOEBNITS1KzU1MLUotgsjIcHEoSvLOuAzUKFqWmp1akZeaUIKSZODhBhvMADdcD qeEtLkjMLc5Mh8ifYtTlWDf3xlomIZa8/LxUKXFeH5AiAZCijNI8uDmg9BFRaPzvFaM40FvC vFNAqniAqQdu0iugJUxAS75cSQdZUpKIkJJqYNRfsLT6z0TpjH9rlhWXK3tuEzwSa+/gHr/O /YHAbqXdarWWpcrZD67cb5umdSeselHf75fFe3ZF30tX9fxXNe3yEfFd568undngVXDgoM7D hqmZB6+xvvGt/byEacKySqM3Opft4xzfbJ41U4PpVnnyxL2Fx+NuREy/ND3D8rjJ4+gsST63 rgtKLMUZiYZazEXFiQAdBBp7+gIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/ILarR5rnMhi2rzR3qauNEXASHGs>
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [core] #389 (coap-tcp-tls): Version negotiation
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:52:19 -0000

Hi,

My reply is inline:

core issue tracker wrote:
> #389: Version negotiation
>
>   How does a client figure out which CoAP versions a server speaks? For
>   example, what should happen when a client sends a message in a version
>   that the server does not implement? Should the server just close the
>   connection?
>

It seems useful to look at section 6 of RFC 7231 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.6.6) :

   "The 505 (HTTP Version Not Supported) status code indicates that the 
   server does not support, or refuses to support, the major version of 
   HTTP that was used in the request message ....  The server SHOULD 
generate a representation for the 505 response that describes why   that 
version is not supported and what other protocols are supported   by 
that server."


- Mostly because RFC7252 attempts to relate CoAP Response Codes to HTTP 
where possible. However, since 5.05 is already used to indicate 
"Proxying Not Supported", existing options are 5.01 Not Implemented, or 
extending CoAP with a new 5.06 Version Not Supported, with perhaps the 
response payload providing the server supported version(s).

On a related note, section 5.9 of RFC 7252 refers to a part of RFC 2616 
that has now been updated by RFC 7231. Please see 
https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/06/07/rfc2616_is_dead

Regards,
Bill