Constrained Application Protocol

Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a specialized UDP-based Internet application protocol for constrained devices, as defined in RFC 7252. It enables those constrained devices called "nodes" to communicate with the wider Internet using similar protocols. CoAP is designed for use between devices on the same constrained network (e.g., low-power, lossy networks), between devices and general nodes on the Internet, and between devices on different constrained networks both joined by an internet. CoAP is also being used via other mechanisms, such as SMS on mobile communication networks.

CoAP is an application-layer protocol that is intended for use in resource-constrained Internet devices, such as wireless sensor network nodes. CoAP is designed to easily translate to HTTP for simplified integration with the web, while also meeting specialized requirements such as multicast support, very low overhead, and simplicity. ^{[1] [2]} Multicast, low overhead, and simplicity are important for Internet of things (IoT) and machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, which tend to be embedded and have much less memory and power supply than traditional Internet devices have. Therefore, efficiency is very important. CoAP can run on most devices that support UDP or a UDP analogue.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Constrained RESTful Environments Working Group (CoRE) has done the major standardization work for this protocol. In order to make the protocol suitable to IoT and M2M applications, various new functions have been added.

Specification

The core of the protocol is specified in RFC   7252. Various extensions have been proposed, particularly:

• RFC   7641 (2015) Observing Resources in the Constrained Application Protocol
• RFC   7959 (2016) Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
• RFC   8323 (2018) CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets
• RFC   8974 (2021) Extended Tokens and Stateless Clients in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)

Message formats

CoAP makes use of two message types, requests and responses, using a simple, binary header format. CoAP is by default bound to UDP and optionally to DTLS, providing a high level of communications security. When bound to UDP, the entire message must fit within a single datagram. When used with 6LoWPAN as defined in RFC 4944, messages should fit into a single IEEE 802.15.4 frame to minimize fragmentation.

The smallest CoAP message is 4 bytes in length, if the token, options and payload fields are omitted, i.e. if it only consists of the CoAP header. The header is followed by the token value (0 to 8 bytes) which may be followed by a list of options in an optimized type–length–value format. Any bytes after the header, token and options (if any) are considered the message payload, which is prefixed by the one-byte "payload marker" (0xFF). The length of the payload is implied by the datagram length.

CoAP Message

Octet offset		0								1								2								3
	Bit offset	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
4	32	ver		type		token length				request/response code								message ID
8	64	token (0–8 bytes)
12	96
16	128	options (if available)
20	160	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	payload (if available)

CoAP Fixed-Size Header

The first 4 bytes are mandatory in all CoAP datagrams, they constitute the fixed-size header.

These fields can be extracted from these 4 bytes in C via these macros:

#define COAP_HEADER_VERSION(data)  ( (0xC0 & (data)[0]) >> 6      )#define COAP_HEADER_TYPE(data)     ( (0x30 & (data)[0]) >> 4      )#define COAP_HEADER_TKL(data)      ( (0x0F & (data)[0]) >> 0      )#define COAP_HEADER_CLASS(data)    ( ((data)[1] >> 5) & 0x07      )#define COAP_HEADER_CODE(data)     ( ((data)[1] >> 0) & 0x1F      )#define COAP_HEADER_MID(data)      ( ((data)[2] << 8) | (data)[3] )

Version (ver) (2 bits)

Indicates the CoAP version number.

Type (2 bits)

This describes the datagram's message type for the two message type context of Request and Response.

• Request
  • 0 : Confirmable : This message expects a corresponding acknowledgement message.
  • 1 : Non-confirmable : This message does not expect a confirmation message.
• Response
  • 2 : Acknowledgement : This message is a response that acknowledge a confirmable message
  • 3 : Reset : This message indicates that it had received a message but could not process it.

Token length (4 bits)

Indicates the length of the variable-length Token field, which may be 0–8 bytes in length.

Request/response code (8 bits)

0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Class			Code

The three most significant bits form a number known as the "class", which is analogous to the class of HTTP status codes. The five least significant bits form a code that communicates further detail about the request or response. The entire code is typically communicated in the form class.code .

You can find the latest CoAP request/response codes at , though the below list gives some examples:

• Method: 0.XX
  0. EMPTY
  1. GET
  2. POST
  3. PUT
  4. DELETE
  5. FETCH
  6. PATCH
  7. iPATCH
• Success: 2.XX
  1. Created
  2. Deleted
  3. Valid
  4. Changed
  5. Content
  31. Continue
• Client Error: 4.XX
  0. Bad Request
  1. Unauthorized
  2. Bad Option
  3. Forbidden
  4. Not Found
  5. Method Not Allowed
  6. Not Acceptable
  8. Request Entity Incomplete
  9. Conflict
  12. Precondition Failed
  13. Request Entity Too Large
  15. Unsupported Content-Format
• Server error: 5.XX
  0. Internal server error
  1. Not implemented
  2. Bad gateway
  3. Service unavailable
  4. Gateway timeout
  5. Proxying not supported
• Signaling Codes: 7.XX
  0. Unassigned
  1. CSM
  2. Ping
  3. Pong
  4. Release
  5. Abort

Message ID (16 bits)

Used to detect message duplication and to match messages of type acknowledgement/reset to messages of type confirmable/non-confirmable.

Token

Every request carries a token (but it may be zero length) whose value was generated by the client. The server must echo every token value without any modification back to the client in the corresponding response. It is intended for use as a client-local identifier to match requests and responses, especially for concurrent requests.

Matching requests and responses is not done with the message ID because a response may be sent in a different message than the acknowledgement (which uses the message ID for matching). For example, this could be done to prevent retransmissions if obtaining the result takes some time. Such a detached response is called "separate response". In contrast, transmitting the response directly in the acknowledgement is called "piggybacked response" which is expected to be preferred for efficiency reasons.

Option

Option Format

Bit position
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Option delta				Option length
Option delta extended (none, 8 bits, 16 bits)
Option length extended (none, 8 bits, 16 bits)
Option value

Option delta:

• 0 to 12: For delta between 0 and 12: Represents the exact delta value between the last option ID and the desired option ID, with no option delta extended value
• 13: For delta from 13 to 268: Option delta extended is an 8-bit value that represents the option delta value minus 13
• 14: For delta from 269 to 65,804: Option delta extended is a 16-bit value that represents the option delta value minus 269
• 15: Reserved for payload marker, where the option delta and option length are set together as 0xFF.

Option length:

• 0 to 12: For option length between 0 and 12: Represents the exact length value, with no option length extended value
• 13: For option length from 13 to 268: Option length extended is an 8-bit value that represents the option length value minus 13
• 14: For option length from 269 to 65,804: Option length extended is a 16-bit value that represents the option length value minus 269
• 15: Reserved for future use. It is an error for the option length field to be set to 0xFF.

Option value:

• Size of option value field is defined by option length value in bytes.
• Semantic and format this field depends on the respective option.

Implementations

Name	Programming Language	Implemented CoAP version	Client/Server	Implemented CoAP features	License	Link
coap	Dart	RFC 7252	Client	Blockwise Transfers, Observe, Multicast, Proxying (partial)	MIT	https://github.com/shamblett/coap
aiocoap	Python 3	RFC 7252, RFC 7641, RFC 7959, RFC 8323, RFC 7967, RFC 8132, RFC 9176, RFC 8613, RFC 9528	Client + Server	Blockwise Transfers, Observe (partial)	MIT	https://pypi.python.org/pypi/aiocoap
Californium	Java	RFC 7252, RFC 7641, RFC 7959	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers, Multicast (since 2.x), DTLS (+ DTLS 1.2 Connection ID)	EPL+EDL	https://www.eclipse.org/californium https://github.com/eclipse/californium
cantcoap	C++/C	RFC 7252	Client + Server		BSD	https://github.com/staropram/cantcoap
Canopus	Go	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core	Apache License 2.0	https://github.com/zubairhamed/canopus
Go-CoAP	Go	RFC 7252, RFC 8232, RFC 7641, RFC 7959	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Blockwise, Multicast, TCP/TLS	Apache License 2.0	https://github.com/plgd-dev/go-coap
CoAP implementation for Go	Go	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core + Draft Subscribe	MIT	https://github.com/dustin/go-coap
CoAP.NET	C#	RFC 7252, coap-13, coap-08, coap-03	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Blockwise Transfers	3-clause BSD	https://github.com/smeshlink/CoAP.NET
CoAPSharp	C#, .NET	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Block, RD	LGPL	http://www.coapsharp.com
CoAPthon	Python	RFC 7252	Client + Server + Forward Proxy + Reverse Proxy	Observe, Multicast server discovery, CoRE Link Format parsing, Block-wise	MIT	https://github.com/Tanganelli/CoAPthon
CoAP Shell	Java	RFC 7252	Client	Observe, Blockwise Transfers, DTLS	Apache License 2.0	https://github.com/tzolov/coap-shell
Copper	JavaScript (Browser Plugin)	RFC 7252	Client	Observe, Blockwise Transfers	3-clause BSD	https://github.com/mkovatsc/Copper https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/copper-270430/%5B‍%5D
eCoAP	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core	MIT	https://gitlab.com/jobol/ecoap
Erbium for Contiki	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers	3-clause BSD	http://www.contiki-os.org/ (er-rest-example)
FreeCoAP	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server + HTTP/CoAP Proxy	Core, DTLS, Blockwise Transfers	BSD	https://github.com/keith-cullen/FreeCoAP
guile-coap	Guile	RFC 7252, RFC 8323	Client + Server		GPL-3.0-or-later	https://codeberg.org/eris/guile-coap
iCoAP	Objective-C	RFC 7252	Client	Core, Observe, Blockwise Transfers	MIT	https://github.com/stuffrabbit/iCoAP
java-coap	Java	RFC 7252, RFC 7641, RFC 7959, RFC 8323	Client + Server		Apache License 2.0	https://github.com/PelionIoT/java-coap
jCoAP	Java	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers	Apache License 2.0	https://code.google.com/p/jcoap/
libcoap	C	RFC 7252, RFC 7390, RFC 7641, RFC 7959, RFC 7967, RFC 8132, RFC 8323, RFC 8516, RFC 8613, RFC 8768, RFC 8974, RFC 9175, RFC 9177	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Multicast, Blockwise Transfers, Patch/Fetch, OSCORE, DTLS	BSD/GPL	https://github.com/obgm/libcoap
LibNyoci	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Block, DTLS	MIT	https://github.com/darconeous/libnyoci
lobaro-coap	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers	MIT	http://www.lobaro.com/lobaro-coap
microcoap	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server		MIT	https://github.com/1248/microcoap
microCoAPy	MicroPython	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core	Apache License 2.0	https://github.com/insighio/microCoAPy
nanoCoAP	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Blockwise Transfers, DTLS	LGPL	https://api.riot-os.org/group__net__nanocoap.html
nCoap	Java	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers, CoRE Link Format, Endpoint-ID-Draft	BSD	https://github.com/okleine/nCoAP
node-coap	Javascript	RFC 7252, RFC 7641, RFC 7959	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Block	MIT	https://github.com/mcollina/node-coap
Qt CoAP	C++	RFC 7252	Client	Core, Observe, Blockwise Transfers	GPL, Commercial	https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtcoap-index.html
Ruby coap	Ruby	RFC 7252	Client + Server (david)	Core, Observe, Block, RD	MIT, GPL	https://github.com/nning/coap https://github.com/nning/david
Sensinode C Device Library	C	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Block, RD	Commercial	https://silver.arm.com/browse/SEN00
Sensinode Java Device Library	Java SE	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Block, RD	Commercial	https://silver.arm.com/browse/SEN00
Sensinode NanoService Platform	Java SE	RFC 7252	Cloud Server	Core, Observe, Block, RD	Commercial	https://silver.arm.com/browse/SEN00
SwiftCoAP	Swift	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Observe, Blockwise Transfers	MIT	https://github.com/stuffrabbit/SwiftCoAP
TinyOS CoapBlip	nesC/C	coap-13	Client + Server	Observe, Blockwise Transfers	BSD	https://web.archive.org/web/20130312140509/http://docs.tinyos.net/tinywiki/index.php/CoAP
txThings	Python (Twisted)	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Blockwise Transfers, Observe (partial)	MIT	https://github.com/mwasilak/txThings/
coap-rs	Rust	RFC 7252	Client + Server	Core, Multicast, Observe option, Too Many Requests Response Code	MIT	https://github.com/Covertness/coap-rs https://docs.rs/coap/
YaCoAP	C				MIT	https://github.com/RIOT-Makers/YaCoAP

Proxy implementations

• Squid 3.1.9 with transparent HTTP-CoAP mapping module
• jcoap Proxy
• Californium cf-proxy2
• CoAPthon
• FreeCoAP

CoAP group communication

In many CoAP application domains it is essential to have the ability to address several CoAP resources as a group, instead of addressing each resource individually (e.g. to turn on all the CoAP-enabled lights in a room with a single CoAP request triggered by toggling the light switch). To address this need, the IETF has developed an optional extension for CoAP in the form of an experimental RFC: Group Communication for CoAP - RFC 7390 ^[3] This extension relies on IP multicast to deliver the CoAP request to all group members. The use of multicast has certain benefits such as reducing the number of packets needed to deliver the request to the members. However, multicast also has its limitations such as poor reliability and being cache-unfriendly. An alternative method for CoAP group communication that uses unicasts instead of multicasts relies on having an intermediary where the groups are created. Clients send their group requests to the intermediary, which in turn sends individual unicast requests to the group members, collects the replies from them, and sends back an aggregated reply to the client. ^[4]

Security

CoAP defines four security modes: ^[5]

• NoSec, where DTLS is disabled
• PreSharedKey, where DTLS is enabled, there is a list of pre-shared keys, and each key includes a list of which nodes it can be used to communicate with. Devices must support the AES cipher suite.
• RawPublicKey, where DTLS is enabled and the device uses an asymmetric key pair without a certificate, which is validated out of band. Devices must support the AES cipher suite and Elliptic Curve algorithms for key exchange.
• Certificate, where DTLS is enabled and the device uses X.509 certificates for validation.

Research has been conducted on optimizing DTLS by implementing security associates as CoAP resources rather than using DTLS as a security wrapper for CoAP traffic. This research has indicated that improvements of up to 6.5 times none optimized implementations. ^[6]

In addition to DTLS, RFC8613 ^[7] defines the Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) protocol which provides security for CoAP at the application layer.

Security issues

Although the protocol standard includes provisions for mitigating the threat of DDoS amplification attacks, ^[8] these provisions are not implemented in practice, ^[9] resulting in the presence of over 580,000 targets primarily located in China and attacks up to 320 Gbit/s. ^[10]

See also

• Internet of Things
• OMA Lightweight M2M
• Web of Things
• Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)

References

1. RFC 7252, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
2. "Integrating Wireless Sensor Networks with the Web Archived 2017-08-30 at the Wayback Machine " , Walter, Colitti 2011
3. RFC 7390, Group Communication for CoAP
4. "Flexible Unicast-Based Group Communication for CoAP-Enabled Devices" , Ishaq, I.; Hoebeke, J.; Van den Abeele, F.; Rossey, J.; Moerman, I.; Demeester, P. Sensors 2014
5. RFC 7252, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
6. Capossele, Angelo; Cervo, Valerio; De Cicco, Gianluca; Petrioli, Chiara (June 2015). "Security as a CoAP resource: An optimized DTLS implementation for the IoT". 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). pp. 529–554. doi:10.1109/ICC.2015.7248379. ISBN   978-1-4673-6432-4. S2CID   12568959.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
7. Palombini, Francesca; Seitz, Ludwig; Selander, Goeran; Mattsson, John (2019). "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)". tools.ietf.org. doi:10.17487/RFC8613. S2CID   58380874 . Retrieved 2021-05-07.
8. "TLS 1.3 is going to save us all, and other reasons why IoT is still insecure", Dani Grant, 2017-12-24
9. "When Machines Can't Talk: Security and Privacy Issues of Machine-to-Machine Data Protocols", Federico Maggi and Rainer Vosseler, 2018-12-06
10. "The CoAP protocol is the next big thing for DDoS attacks", Catalin Cimpanu, 2018-12-05

External links

• RFC 7252 "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)"
• coap.me – CoAP test server run by University of Bremen