RFC 9177: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting Robust Transmission
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document specifies alternative Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) block-wise transfer options: Q-Block1 and Q-Block2. These options are similar to, but distinct from, the CoAP Block1 and Block2 options defined in RFC 7959. The Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options are not intended to replace the Block1 and Block2 options but rather have the goal of supporting Non-confirmable (NON) messages for large amounts of data with fewer packet interchanges. Also, the Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 options support faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in transmission.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9177
- Published
- March 2022
- Authors
- M. Boucadair; J. Shallow
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 41
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9362Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block TransmissionCurrent
February 2023
- RFC 8783Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel SpecificationCurrent
May 2020
- RFC 8768Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Hop-Limit OptionCurrent
March 2020
- RFC 9132Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel SpecificationCurrent
September 2021
- RFC 8782Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel SpecificationObsoleted
May 2020
- RFC 9937Proportional Rate Reduction (PRR)Current
December 2025
- RFC 5681TCP Congestion ControlUpdated
September 2009
- RFC 9145Integrity Protection for the Network Service Header (NSH) and Encryption of Sensitive Context HeadersCurrent
December 2021
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?