| Internet-Draft | cGRASP | May 2025 |
| Zhu, et al. | Expires 5 November 2025 | [Page] |
This document proposes the UDP-based Constrained GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (cGRASP), which is designed to be a constrained and lightweight version of the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol(GRASP, or the standard GRASP), with shortened messages and a built-in reliability mechanism. cGRASP can work reliably over UDP, making it suitable for IoT, where lightweight and resource-constrained devices dominate. Given the established ecosystem of CoAP and aiming to promote cGRASP adoption in IoT, this document also focuses on the cGRASP transition from UDP to a CoAP-based framework, i.e., CoAP-based cGRASP. Furthermore, this document also discusses the potential way to adapt the cGRASP to work on the network without IP connectivity.¶
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 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 5 November 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.¶
In IoT that has developed rapidly in recent years, the traditional centralized and human-centered network management methods have gradually shown defects such as low efficiency and high operating costs due to the growth in the number, heterogeneity, diversity, and the increasingly uncertain distribution of devices. Autonomic Network[RFC8993] empowers networks and devices with self-management capabilities, enabling them to self-configure, self-optimize, self-recover, and self-protect without human intervention, effectively improving the stability and reliability of the network, which meets the development needs and trends of IoT and is essential for implementing IoT applications such as smart homes, smart cities, and industrial IoT.¶
As a new network management solution for TCP/IP networks, the Autonomic Network does not intend to break the existing IP-based network architecture. So does the GRASP[RFC8990], the signaling protocol in the Autonomic Network. While located between the transport layer and the application layer, GRASP provides reliable and efficient services for nodes in the Autonomic Network, like parameter discovery, exchange, and negotiation, based on the TCP/IP protocols. Since it does not provide reliability mechanisms such as error detection, retransmission, and flow control[RFC8990], GRASP must depend on the reliability mechanisms provided by the transport layer, particularly its synchronization and negotiation procedures based on one or more round(s) of message interaction. It is specified in [RFC8990] that GRASP unicast messages MUST use the reliable transport layer protocol, e.g., TCP.¶
However, the reliability provided by TCP is not free. GRASP must tolerate the inevitable additional latency, control overhead, and memory consumption caused by complex reliability mechanisms of TCP, e.g., the resource consumption and control overhead associated with establishing, maintaining, and closing TCP connections. In addition, the size of the TCP/IP stack on which GRASP relies and the memory resources required to run it are not negligible, e.g., running a standard full TCP/IP stack requires at least tens to hundreds of KBs of data and code memory, and even TCP/IP stacks specifically designed and implemented for resource-constrained devices require tens of KBs of memory. However, the resource-constrained device typically has only about 50KB of memory[RFC7228]. Obviously, in the IoT networks dominated by resource-constrained devices with limited CPU, memory, and power resources, the resource footprint of the TCP/IP stack and its execution, especially the TCP, is likely to be a limiting factor in the deployment of the Autonomic Network and GRASP. Therefore, making GRASP lightweight and removing its dependence on TCP or even IP is of great significance for the deployment and promotion of GRASP in the IoT. In addition, considering the generally short length of interaction messages between IoT nodes, it is also necessary to shorten the length of GRASP messages with the best efforts, especially the control fields, which can also reduce the overhead of nodes in processing, parsing, and sending GRASP messages.¶
Considering the demand for self-management and the resource-constrained feature of IoT devices, this document proposes the UDP-based Constrained GRASP (cGRASP). By reducing the length of fixed fields, and adding a built-in reliability mechanism with the acknowledgment and retransmission capability, cGRASP can provide reliable signaling services without relying on TCP. Since the wide adoption and mature ecosystem of CoAP[RFC7252] in low-power and low-bandwidth networks, migrating cGRASP from UDP-based to CoAP-based would significantly benefit its deployment in current IoT networks. Hence, the CoAP-based cGRASP is also considered and proposed in this document. In addition, to better address the need for self-management of the IoT, the possible IP-independent extension is discussed, which can extend the use of cGRASP to networks without IP connectivity.¶
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.¶
cGRASP is designed to be UDP-based to avoid the additional control overhead and memory consumption caused by TCP, thus matching the capabilities of IoT nodes. Meanwhile, to ensure reliability, the cGRASP introduces a message-oriented built-in reliability mechanism.¶
cGRASP uses the 16-bit random number called Nonce to implement the acknowledgment and retransmission mechanism for messages to avoid interaction failures caused by message losses. However, as discussed in Section 4.3, not all cGRASP messages require acknowledgment, such as multicast messages. The cGRASP messages that require acknowledgment are referred to in this document as confirmable messages, and the others that do not require acknowledgment are referred to as non-confirmable messages. The transmission of confirmable messages MUST use the reliability mechanism defined in this section, while non-confirmable messages do not.¶
When sending a confirmable message, the cGRASP sender MUST generate a 16-bit random Nonce and append the Nonce to the message. Upon receipt of a confirmable message, the receiver MUST acknowledge immediately using the same Nonce as that of the received, or wait for a post-order message in the same direction and piggyback acknowledge with this message within the CGRASP_ACK_DELAYED_TIME. The latter is the delayed acknowledgment, if there is no corresponding message to be sent within the CGRASP_ACK_DELAYED_TIME, an ACK message MUST be sent immediately. cGRASP defines two new options, i.e., the REQ-ACK option and the ACK option. The REQ-ACK option is used to carry the Nonce generated by cGRASP for a specific confirmable message and MUST be added to this message as an option. The ACK option also contains a Nonce for acknowledging a corresponding confirmable message, which MUST be added as an option to an ACK message (immediate acknowledgment) or a post-order message in the same direction (delayed acknowledgment). The REQ-ACK option, the ACK option, and the ACK message are defined in Section 4.2.2, Section 4.2.3, and Section 4.3, respectively.¶
The Nonce can be regarded as the unique identifier of a confirmable message before it is acknowledged. Thus, the cGRASP nodes MUST avoid Nonce conflicts among unacknowledged confirmable messages. Specifically, the Nonce SHOULD be generated by a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) based on the locally generated unique seed to avoid the conflict of Nonce generated by different nodes in the same network. Meanwhile, the cGRASP instance SHOULD create and maintain a Nonce cache to record the Nonce used by confirmable messages. After generating a Nonce for a message, the cGRASP MUST check whether it conflicts with an existing entry in the Nonce cache, and if it doesn't, it SHOULD record the Nonce in the cache. Otherwise, the Nonce for the confirmable message MUST be regenerated. After the cGRASP node receives a message with an ACK option(or more than one ACK option), it SHOULD first extract the Nonce from it and check whether there is a corresponding entry with the same Nonce value in the Nonce cache; if not, the received message SHOULD be directly ignored. Otherwise, the cGRASP node SHOULD mark the Nonce entry as acknowledged and delete it when the corresponding cGRASP session is completed. It is worth emphasizing that confirmable messages marked as acknowledged SHOULD also be considered by the aforementioned Nonce conflict detection.¶
The cGRASP sender MUST set the retransmission timer when sending a confirmable message; see Section 3.2 for details on setting the timeout. If the cGRASP confirmable message does not get an acknowledgment within the retransmission timeout, then the message MUST be retransmitted. The retransmission message SHOULD keep the Nonce the same as the original message. However, when a confirmable message has been accepted and processed by the receiver but is retransmitted due to lost acknowledgment, the cGRASP can not identify the retransmission message and will repeatedly process it, which can be dangerous. Thus, the cGRASP receiver SHOULD record and cache the Nonces of confirmable messages that have been received and processed for each cGRASP session until it is completed and check whether the Nonce of each arriving message conflicts with the cached Nonces, if it doesn't, then accept and process it. Otherwise, which means the message is a retransmission message, cGRASP SHOULD discard it and send acknowledgment, to avoid duplicated processing of the retransmission and original messages due to the loss of the acknowledgment.¶
The delayed acknowledgment mechanism can reduce the communication cost caused by the ACK message, but its waiting time may cause unnecessary delay, which reduces the efficiency of communication. In the actual cGRASP implementation, users SHOULD be allowed to enable or completely disable delayed acknowledgment according to their needs.¶
The retransmission timeout for reliable transmission of cGRASP messages is CGRASP_RETRANS_TIMEOUT. If the cGRASP message is not acknowledged within the retransmission timeout and the number of retransmissions does not reach MAX_RETRANS, the message MUST be retransmitted and the retransmission timer SHOULD be reset, the retransmission timeout SHOULD be incremented to twice, and the number of retransmissions SHOULD be incremented by 1. If the cGRASP message is not acknowledged within the retransmission timeout and the number of retransmissions exceeds MAX_RETRANS, the retransmission MUST be discarded, and the transmission fails.¶
cGRASP has made modifications to the standard GRASP by reducing the fixed fields and introducing a message-oriented built-in reliability mechanism with the acknowledgment and retransmission capability based on Nonce. To achieve this, cGRASP redefines the Objective option in standard GRASP as the cGRASP Objective option and defines a new message named ACK message, along with two new options named REQ-ACK option and ACK option. However, cGRASP does not modify the discovery, negotiation, synchronization, and flooding procedures, as well as the defined options (except for the Objective option) of the standard GRASP. In addition, cGRASP still adheres to the High-Level Deployment Model and High-Level Design defined for GRASP, so as not to affect the signaling service provided by the protocol. In order to differentiate from standard GRASP, cGRASP instances SHOULD listen for messages using a new well-known port, CGRASP_LISTEN_PORT (TBD1).¶
Like standard GRASP, cGRASP messages continue to be transmitted in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)[RFC8949] and be described using Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)[RFC8610]. The session-id in the cGRASP message is shortened from 32 bits to 16 bits to minimize the length of the message, while the meanings of the other fields are still consistent with the standard GRASP message. In fragmentary CDDL, a cGRASP message follows the pattern:¶
cgrasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [C_MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
*cgrasp-option]
C_MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..65535 ; up to 16 bits
cgrasp-option = any
¶
In fragmentary CDDL, a cGRASP Objective option follows the pattern:¶
cGRASP objective = [objective-num, objective-flags, loop-count,
?objective-value]
objective-num = 0..255
objective-value = any
loop-count = 0..255
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0; valid for discovery
F_NEG: 1; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3; negotiation is a dry run
)
¶
Instead of using the text string with indefinite length (i.e., objective-name) as the unique identifier for the Objective option, the cGRASP Objective option is uniquely identified by an 8-bit number (i.e., objective-num), with the remaining fields keeping consistent with the Objective option in standard GRASP. The first two bits of objective-num indicate the cGRASP Objective type (00, 01, and 10 stand for generic cGRASP Objective; 11 stands for privately defined cGRASP Objective), and represent the number of cGRASP Objective together with the remaining six bits. Each generic cGRASP Objective MUST be assigned a unique objective number and be made public to all cGRASP nodes when it's registered. When a private cGRASP Objective is defined, it MUST also be assigned a uniquely distinguishable objective number and be made public within the specific private domain.¶
In cGRASP, the identifier of the cGRASP Objective option is changed from the text string with indefinite length to the 8-bit number, which can minimize the length of the cGRASP Objective option, and also can avoid the additional communication cost caused by excessively long objective-name text strings, and the overhead of byte-by-byte comparison and identification of objective-name in the standard GRASP.¶
The REQ-ACK option is used to indicate that the message MUST be acknowledged by the receiver. When a message needs acknowledgment (i.e., the confirmable message), the sender MUST generate the REQ-ACK option and add it to the message to request the receiver to acknowledge. The REQ-ACK option MUST NOT be allowed to appear in the non-confirmable message (like the Discovery message and the Flood Synchronization message) to avoid a large number of ACK messages in a short time. In fragmentary CDDL, a REQ-ACK option follows the pattern:¶
req-ack-option = [O_REQ_ACK, Nonce] Nonce = 0..65535¶
Nonce is a 16-bit random number and MUST avoid local conflicts. The Nonce generation and conflict prevention mechanisms are described in Section 3.1.¶
cGRASP also defines an ACK option for acknowledging messages carrying a REQ-ACK option. Upon receiving a message with the REQ-ACK option, as specified in Section 3.1, the cGRASP receiver MUST either promptly send an ACK message with a corresponding ACK option; or wait a while for a post-order message in the same direction to be sent and add the ACK option to that message to piggyback acknowledge. The ACK option MUST only be allowed to appear in confirmable messages, as discussed in Section 4.3. In fragmentary CDDL, an ACK option follows the pattern:¶
ack-option = [O_ACK, Nonce] Nonce = 0..65535; same as the req-ack option¶
Where, the Nonce MUST be the same as the Nonce in the corresponding REQ-ACK option.¶
cGRASP reserves all the message types and values of the standard GRASP, as well as the definitions of each related field. cGRASP extends its unicast messages to allow them to carry the REQ-ACK option or the ACK option, enabling cGRASP to implement a built-in reliability mechanism.¶
All unicast messages used in the three procedures of discovery, negotiation, and synchronization of cGRASP MUST be acknowledged to ensure the reliability and operational efficiency of the interactions. At the same time, these unicast messages are allowed to carry zero or more ACK option(s) to acknowledge the confirmable message belonging to the same or different interaction session(s). In addition, Invalid messages are used to respond to invalid messages and contain related diagnostic information which if lost may affect the subsequent message interactions, thus its acknowledgment is necessary and MUST carry a REQ-ACK option. Similarly, the Invalid message can also carry zero or more ACK option(s) for acknowledgment.¶
The Discovery message and Flood Synchronization message that is multicast, as well as the NOOP message that does not contain actual information, are not allowed to carry the REQ-ACK option or the ACK option, i.e., non-confirmable message, whose definition is the same as the standard GRASP and will not be repeated here. The CDDL definitions for messages with extension( i.e. the confirmable message) for reliability are defined as follows:¶
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
req-ack-option, *ack-option, (+locator-option
// divert-option), ?cGRASP objective]
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, req-ack-option,
*ack-option, cGRASP objective]
request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id,
req-ack-option,
*ack-option, cGRASP objective]
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, req-ack-option,
*ack-option,cGRASP objective]
end-message = [M_END, session-id, req-ack-option, *ack-option,
cGRASP accept-option / decline-option]
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, req-ack-option, *ack-option,
waiting-time]
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, req-ack-option, *ack-option,
cGRASP objective]
invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, req-ack-option, *ack-option,
?any]
¶
In addition, cGRASP defines an ACK message for immediate acknowledgment. In fragmentary CDDL, an ACK message follows the pattern:¶
ack-message = [M_ACK, ack-option]¶
The Nonce in the ACK option must be the same as the corresponding REQ-ACK option.¶
CGRASP_LISTEN_PORT(TBD1)¶
A well-known UDP user port that every cGRASP-enabled network device MUST listen to for UDP-based messages.¶
CGRASP_ACK_DELAYED_TIME(200 milliseconds)¶
The default maximum waiting time for delayed acknowledgment.¶
CGRASP_RETRANS_TIMEOUT(2000 milliseconds)¶
The default timeout is used to determine that a cGRASP confirmable message needs to be resent.¶
MAX_RETRANS(3)¶
The default maximum times of retransmission for confirmable messages.¶
In addition, the constants for cGRASP also contain the ALL_CGRASP_NEIGHBORS, CGRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT, CGRASP_DEF_LOOPCT, CGRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE, whose definitions and values are respectively same as the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS, GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT, GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT, GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE in GRASP[RFC8990].¶
CoAP[RFC7252] is a lightweight, RESTful protocol designed for resource-constrained IoT devices. It enables efficient communication in low-power and low-bandwidth networks, driving its wide adoption in IoT. Considering the growing demand for cGRASP and the mature ecosystem of CoAP, the transition from UDP to CoAP would significantly benefit the deployment of cGRASP in current IoT networks. Additionally, some works on extending CoAP messaging to work over non-IP network scenarios have been proposed, such as its adaptation to Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) via CoAP over GATT[CoAPoverGATT], which are of great help for the future cGRASP IP-independent extension. This section focuses on the exchange of CoAP-based cGRASP.¶
To access the cGRASP service over CoAP, this document defines the well-known URI "grasp-coap" (to be assigned by IANA). The /.well-known/grasp-coap URI is used with "coap", "coaps", "coap+tcp", "coaps+tcp", "coaps+ws", or "coap+ws".¶
CoAP maintains two logical sublayers: the request/response sublayer and the message sublayer. However, the request/response mechanism of CoAP conflicts with the interaction procedures of cGRASP. In particular, it's challenging to map the multiple rounds of negotiation-related cGRASP messages directly to the CoAP request-response. For this reason, and considering the built-in cGRASP reliability mechanism, this document utilizes Non-confirmable CoAP messages as carriers for cGRASP message distribution. To minimize modifications to CoAP, cGRASP over CoAP reuses CoAP messages but does not invoke their associated methods. In CoAP-based cGRASP, the cGRASP messages MUST be encapsulated as CoAP payloads with the content-format identifier application/cbor[RFC8949]. Upon receipt of the request with the /.well-known/grasp-coap URI, the CoAP instance MUST parse out the payload and forward it to the cGRASP instance, bypassing associated resource processing. The cGRASP instance SHOULD handle messages from CoAP according to its specification and SHOULD transmit subsequent messages via CoAP responses or new requests.¶
A cGRASP discovery process will start with a multicast discovery message(M_DISCOVERY) on the local link, and nodes supporting the discovery objective will respond with discovery response(M_RESPONSE) messages. The cGRASP discovery message over CoAP SHOULD use the non-confirmable CoAP multicast Fetch request with the No-Response option[RFC7967] to suppress unnecessary responses and SHOULD use standard CoAP multicast addresses (e.g., 224.0.1.187 for IPv4, FF0X::FD for IPv6[RFC7252]). The discovery response over CoAP SHOULD use the CoAP unicast POST request. The following examples illustrate the cGRASP discovery and discovery response messages over CoAP, and the cGRASP M_RESPONSE and M_ACK over CoAP SHOULD use the CoAP token and message ID associated with each other for transaction matching:¶
cGRASP discovery initiator: (NON-confirmable) FETCH coap://FF02::13/.well-known/grasp-coap Content-format: application/cbor Accept: application/cbor No-Response Payload: cGRASP M_DISCOVERY (Non-confirmable) FETCH coap://224.0.1.187/.well-known/grasp-coap Content-format: application/cbor Accept: application/cbor No-Response Payload: cGRASP M_DISCOVERY cGRASP discovery responder: (Non-confirmable) POST coap://2001:db8::1/.well-known/grasp-coap Content-format: application/cbor Accept: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_RESPONSE cGRASP discovery initiator: (Non-confirmable) 2.04(Changed) Content-format: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_ACK¶
Since the cGRASP flooding procedure performs network-wide synchronization by propagating a single flooding message, the cGRASP flooding over CoAP SHOULD use the non-confirmable CoAP multicast POST request with the No-Response option. Both the cGRASP discovery and flooding over CoAP SHOULD also maintain the relaying instance defined in [RFC8990] to expand the multicast scope. The following example illustrates the cGRASP flood message over CoAP:¶
cGRASP flooding initiator: (Non-confirmable) POST coap://FF02::13/.well-known/grasp-coap Content-format: application/cbor No-Response Payload: cGRASP M_FLOOD¶
The cGRASP negotiation is a bidirectional multi-round procedure. The negotiation-related messages over CoAP SHOULD use the non-confirmable CoAP POST request or their corresponding response. The following examples illustrate a cGRASP negotiation procedure over CoAP:¶
cGRASP negotiation initiator: (Non-confirmable) POST coap://2001:db8::1/.well-known/grasp Content-format: application/cbor Accept: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_REQ_NEG with cGRASP objective[objective-num=0,expected-value="A"] cGRASP negotiation responder: (Non-confirmable) 2.04(Changed) Content-format: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_WAIT with O_ACK cGRASP negotiation responder: (Non-confirmable) POST coap://2001:db8::2/.well-known/grasp Content-format: application/cbor Accept: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_NEGOTIATE with O_ACK and cGRASP objective[objective-num=0,expected-value="B"] cGRASP negotiation initiator: (Non-confirmable) 2.04(Changed) Content-format: application/cbor Payload: cGRASP M_END with O_ACCEPT and O_ACK cGRASP negotiation responder: (Non-confirmable) POST coap://2001:db8::2/.well-known/grasp Content-format: application/cbor No-Response Payload: cGRASP M_ACK¶
In some IoT scenarios where the need for self-management is urgent, resource-constrained devices in it may not or choose not to support IP connectivity. Therefore, to improve the generality of cGRASP and better support the self-management requirements of the IoT, it is necessary to further discuss how cGRASP adapts to networks without the IP connection.¶
The GRASP and its constrained version cGRASP can only work in IP networks, due to the Locator options used by them. The Locator option is used to locate resources, services, devices, and interfaces on the network and is the basis for GRASP and cGRASP discovery, negotiation, and synchronization procedures. All the four Locator options defined in [RFC8990] have unique identification capabilities only within an IP network: O_IPv6_LOCATOR, O_IPv4_LOCATOR, O_FQDN_LOCATOR, O_URI_LOCATOR, which respectively depend on the IPv6 address, IPv4 address, Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), and Uniform Resource identifier (URI) for identification and location.¶
Therefore, to enable the cGRASP to work without the IP connection and provide services to cGRASP-enabled nodes, it's necessary to select an identifier(such as the MAC address in the Ethernet) based on the environment and define a new Locator option in the cGRASP to identify and locate a device, interface, resource, or service that can remove dependence of the cGRASP on IP.¶
Using cGRASP without the IP connection requires not only the definition of new Locator options but also the identification of cGRASP so that network nodes and devices can recognize cGRASP messages encapsulated in specific bearer protocol messages. For example, [RFC8990] designs GRASP as a user program, using a well-known port to identify GRASP messages. In practice, the protocol identification of cGRASP should be chosen and extended by the bearer protocol on which it depends, which is out of the scope of this document.¶
In the IoT, where the need for self-management is more urgent, the memory, energy, and computation overheads associated with IP connectivity and transmission may be unacceptable for its resource-constrained devices. In addition, considering the episodic feature of information interactions between IoT devices, some resource-constrained devices may prefer to use low-power and low-bandwidth network connections based on technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy and Zigbee rather than IP connections. This section discusses how to adapt cGRASP to BLE environments without IP connectivity.¶
The core protocol used to establish and manage communication between devices in BLE is the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT, Volume 3 PART G in [BTCorev5.4]), which defines how data is transferred between two BLE devices based on the concepts of Services and Characteristics. In BLE, data is transferred and stored in the form of Characteristics, and the Service is a collection of Characteristics, both identified by a unique numeric ID called UUID. GATT is at the top layer of the BLE stack and can provide API interfaces directly to the upper-layer applications, so it is possible to discuss the cGRASP-over-GATT to exchange cGRASP over BLE.¶
cGRASP-over-GATT can define and use one or more GATT Characteristic(s) to transport cGRASP messages. With the unique identification UUID of the GATT Characteristic, the device can easily recognize whether the transmitted data is a cGRASP message or not. Regarding address identification, BLE devices use a 48-bit device address as a device identifier[BTCorev5.4]. As described in Section 6.1, the cGRASP-over-GATT should define and register a new Locator option based on this identifier.¶
However, since the read/write semantics of the GATT characteristic do not fully match the semantics of the actions associated with the cGRASP interaction procedures, how to bridge this gap is an important step in realizing cGRASP-over-GATT. In addition, BLE provides both reliable ("write without response", "notify") and unreliable ("write with response", "indicate") data transmission, and how to choose between the two modes of data transmission for cGRASP-over-GATT needs to be carefully considered.¶
This document defines the Constrained GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (cGRASP).¶
As specified in Section 4.4, the IANA is requested to assign a USER PORT(CGRASP_LISTEN_PORT, TBD1) for use by cGRASP over UDP.¶
Like the standard GRASP, cGRASP also requires IANA to create the "Constrained GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (cGRASP) Parameters" registry. The "Constrained GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (cGRASP) Parameters" should also include two subregistries: "cGRASP Messages and Options" and "cGRASP Objective Numbers".¶
The "cGRASP Messages and Options" MUST retain all the entries in the "GRASP Messages and Options" subregistry assigned for the standard GRASP, and MUST also add three entries for the new message named "M_ACK", and the two new options named "O_REQ_ACK" and "O_ACK", whose initial values assigned by this document are like the following:¶
M_ACK = 10 O_REQ_ACK = 107 O_ACK = 108¶
The initial numbers for the "cGRASP Objective Numbers" subregistry assigned by this document are like the following:¶
0-9 for Experimental 10-255 Unassigned¶
Considerations for IANA regarding CoAP-based cGRASP in this document are:¶
* Assignment of the URI /.well-known/grasp-coap¶
* Assignment of the media type "application/grasp-coap"¶
* Assignment of the content format "application/grasp-coap"¶
* Assignment of the resource type (rt=) "core.grasp-coap"¶
As a constrained version of GRASP, cGRASP must attach importance to the security considerations of GRASP discussed in [RFC8990]. In addition, given the limited capabilities and weak tamper resistance of constrained nodes, as well as their possible exposure to insecure environments, security issues associated with constrained nodes must not be ignored by the external secure infrastructure (e.g., the ACP) on which the cGRASP is based, e.g., the constrained code space and CPU for implementing cryptographic primitives.¶
The CoAP-based cGRASP should also concern all GRASP and cGRASP related security consideratiosns.¶
TODO more security considerations.¶