Re: [core] "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00)

Michael Koster <> Mon, 05 March 2018 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B93124F57 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:39:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JF-2gJw9klMK for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CC4E12DA19 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e7so18889970ioj.1 for <>; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:39:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=NqE886jKnluFs4mXh/cf7V7T+SoR6JoaZeTsvhtTmes=; b=M0p2MMYapMyV+Lq4XJcmwuT1W0Aoj9jA9PoEF/WbYtpdkgbENDZhPpkUU4s9b2VPpl 2JICSIznDmvEJvDnCth7BTqW+dldma5aWMAGrXpbeQL7XcFqbtBhIklNlSu8EAZA3da8 m883FWCL9IdqO1vGpboOjc0H3zD2r0erUWNi83QpC2eMkSgOsrwt14MYMfRa81oePd30 6W3zrf8Ql3sDE/t5fVcxUMro9MtAhWapWF3u/sEj1RGsEifUya7RK0i91/DBW4HYgSJT +hUL6G8dZfJ/Hptr+wXMRN2128mzLqZEasvV8FL8oiMeJTV6mkzPSrJvKk6V1B+Ukz2+ d4+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=NqE886jKnluFs4mXh/cf7V7T+SoR6JoaZeTsvhtTmes=; b=B8TrdpX5aPMZ/jTtGYC8cKo2aih98S3Jh2zK2Fa9GD3tyrpKoq0lzJ0MI3rs0NvHEN tdpU71zHNZkvlnycbAhQtgvyIU9SpQvUW4AusmsV1OD8fmYxSdqH4xxvD3qz4oBunOiw WrznG4yMpfHJZmoG6+SuKlFWEOJVZ6C/OuaXMR05RyO2sjHAJUcELFxhbYbXCxjk0EKl 7Nq7IYMO9VTmUbmmYNRXRXgjBFGWGo/7aj94XPwcmxpMyyUlWwENeveFveQEn05GfXu1 wp/qGc6TyB5Gyf0AUziQvcUC49tlpUxhpDy/HqXcOWdqfSIbRBu5phOvAEW9bMO46pAz pVcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HrcDmH5KSjfTMTNtwQHXlXTNeH7qfrEuR0KDxAqoEubhiUONjS xnsydlJuLG4fGcrnBVRiG+8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtUe2xAG61XUPpnyZjrcWvlAnSvgBSJvm8y/dhvEFTA9XVWHxG17So7SCYN5h1A0OQBNSdEqg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 4mr1787997ioy.149.1520271553654; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id k6sm8166873ioc.75.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:39:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Koster <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F1D9466-28B0-47C4-A260-BC8084553AC3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:39:10 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ari_Ker=C3=A4nen?= <>, core <>
To: Klaus Hartke <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] "Too Many Requests Response Code for CoAP" draft (draft-keranen-core-too-many-reqs-00)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:39:16 -0000

We are proposing a code in Pub/Sub for the case of a broker where the topic exists but there is not a valid data value. We may be able to use an empty representation as we have decided to do with empty link collections but I fear we need more generality than depending on a special representation value to indicae no data.

We thought that an equivalent to the HTTP 204 "No Content" could be used but the code conflicts with 2.04 in CoAP, so we propose 2.07 <>

Not sure if it makes sense to combine them at this time, but it might.

Best regards,


> On Mar 5, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Klaus Hartke <>; wrote:
> Review summary: Ready for WG adoption. (Are there any other proposed
> CoAP codes that could be merged into this document to streamline
> registration?)