Long live Qt 4.5!

9 files changed, 19676 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitattributes b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..132ab08
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+copy.res/* -crlf Unset
+listData/* -crlf Unset
+stop/* -crlf Unset
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitignore b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dbe8fd4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+tst_q3urloperator
+rfc3252.txt
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/copy.res/rfc3252.txt b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/copy.res/rfc3252.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b80c61b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/copy.res/rfc3252.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,899 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/executable.exe b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/executable.exe
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/executable.exe
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readOnly b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readOnly
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readOnly
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readWriteExec.exe b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readWriteExec.exe
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/listData/readWriteExec.exe
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/q3urloperator.pro b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/q3urloperator.pro
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3364dac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/q3urloperator.pro
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+load(qttest_p4)
+SOURCES  += tst_q3urloperator.cpp
+
+
+contains(QT_CONFIG, qt3support): QT += qt3support
+QT += network
+
+
+
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/stop/bigfile b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/stop/bigfile
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb114a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/stop/bigfile
@@ -0,0 +1,17980 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         H. Kennedy
+Request for Comments: 3252                                      Mimezine
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2002
+
+
+                 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
+   protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
+
+1.   Introduction
+
+1.1. Overview
+
+   This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
+   (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
+   (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
+   [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications.  It also
+   describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
+   networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
+   across the public Internet.
+
+1.2. Motivation
+
+   The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
+   such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
+   Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
+   investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
+   protocol stack.  Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
+   addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
+   of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
+   and hard-to-understand binary protocols.  This protocol unification
+   would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
+   aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
+   out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   parsing to the XML toolset.  The use of XML also mitigates concerns
+   over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
+   network application bugs.
+
+1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
+
+   The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
+   possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
+   contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
+   reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
+
+   The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
+   this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
+   were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
+   element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
+   a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
+
+   Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
+   existing protocols remain unchanged.  Routing, address spaces, TCP
+   congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
+   Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
+   improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
+   has been completed.
+
+1.4. Requirement Levels
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.   IPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
+   IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
+   (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
+
+   The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
+
+   The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
+   parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
+   validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
+   destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
+   next-hop.
+
+   The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
+   wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
+   would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
+   of RFC 2279 [RFC2279].  All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
+   formed and include the XMLDecl.
+
+2.1. IP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
+   specification.  Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
+   human-readable values.  IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
+   decimal notation [RFC1123].  Length and checksum values are present
+   as decimal integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used.  The canonical form
+   SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
+   elements and only one space character between attributes.  There
+   SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
+   length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
+
+   The payload element bears special attention.  Due to the character
+   set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
+   contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
+   REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
+   encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
+   encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+2.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <ip>
+   <header length="474">
+   <version value="4"/>
+   <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
+        relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
+   <total.length value="461"/>
+   <id value="1"/>
+   <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
+   <offset value="0"/>
+   <ttl value="255"/>
+   <protocol value="6"/>
+   <checksum value="8707"/>
+   <source address="10.0.0.22"/>
+   <destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
+   <options>
+   <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
+   </options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </ip>
+
+3.   TCPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
+
+3.1. TCP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
+
+   An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
+   section 2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
+   allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
+
+   TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+3.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <tcp>
+   <tcp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <sequence number="322622954"/>
+   <acknowledgement number="689715995"/>
+   <offset number=""/>
+   <reserved value="0"/>
+   <control syn="1" ack="1"/>
+   <window size="1"/>
+   <urgent pointer="0"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   <tcp.options>
+   <tcp.end kind="0"/>
+   </tcp.options>
+   <padding pad="0"/>
+   </tcp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </tcp>
+
+4.   UDPoXML
+
+   This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.  The
+   DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
+
+4.1. UDP Description
+
+   A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
+   Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
+   values.  Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
+   integers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
+   canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.  An
+   iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
+   2.1.
+
+   The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
+
+   UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header
+   as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
+
+4.2. Example Datagram
+
+   The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
+
+   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+   <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   <udp>
+   <udp.header>
+   <src port="31415"/>
+   <dest port="42424"/>
+   <udp.length value="143"/>
+   <checksum value="2988"/>
+   </udp.header>
+   <payload>
+   </payload>
+   </udp>
+
+5.   Network Transport
+
+   This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
+   two common families of physical layer transport.  Future RFCs will
+   address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
+   specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
+   backbone.
+
+5.1. Ethernet
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
+   exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
+   value 0xBEEF.  The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
+   be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("<?xml".)
+
+5.2. IEEE 802
+
+   BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except
+   that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+6. Gatewaying over IP
+
+   In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the
+   public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to
+   gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
+
+7. DTDs
+
+   The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the
+   Network DTD (7.1.)
+
+   The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from
+   [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations
+   will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded
+   in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you
+   need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
+
+7.1.  IPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+    DTD for IP over XML.
+    Refer to this DTD as:
+
+    <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+   <!--
+    DTD data types:
+
+      Digits      [0..9]+
+
+      Precedence  "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
+                   CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
+                   Priority | Routine"
+
+      IP4Addr     "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
+
+      Class       [0..3]
+
+      Sec          "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
+                    Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
+
+      Compartments [0..65535]
+
+      Handling     [0..65535]
+
+      TCC          [0..16777216]
+
+   -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA">
+   <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
+
+   <!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
+                    protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
+                    padding)>
+   <!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
+   <!ATTLIST header
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
+   <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
+   <!ATTLIST version
+             value   %Digits;  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tos
+             precedence   %Precedence;    #REQUIRED
+             delay    (normal | low)  #REQUIRED
+             throughput   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             relibility   (normal | high) #REQUIRED
+             reserved     CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
+   <!--
+    total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
+    less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
+    ethernets).
+   -->
+   <!ATTLIST total.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535  -->
+   <!ATTLIST id
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT flags EMPTY>
+   <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments  -->
+   <!ATTLIST flags
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+          reserved CDATA  #FIXED "0"
+          df (may|dont)   #REQUIRED
+          mf (last|more)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST ttl
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
+   <!ATTLIST protocol
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
+   <!ATTLIST checksum
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST source
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST destination
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
+                     | stream | timestamp )*>
+
+   <!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST end
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST noop
+             copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST security
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "11"
+             security %Sec; #REQUIRED
+             compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
+             handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
+             tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
+   <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST loose
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "3"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST hop
+             address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST strict
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "9"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
+   <!ATTLIST record
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "7"
+             length %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST stream
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "8"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+>
+   <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST timestamp
+             copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
+             class  CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             number CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             length %Digits;  #REQUIRED
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
+             oflw %Digits;    #REQUIRED
+             flag (0 | 1 | 3)  #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tstamp
+             time %Digits;   #REQUIRED
+             address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
+   <!--
+       padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
+       pad MUST be "0"*
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST padding
+             pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
+        by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
+   <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
+
+7.2.  TCPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for TCP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
+                         reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
+                         tcp.options, padding)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST src
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT dest EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ATTLIST dest
+             port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST sequence
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
+   <!ATTLIST acknowledgement
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
+   <!ATTLIST offset
+             number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST reserved
+             value CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST control
+             urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
+             fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST window
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!--
+      checksum as in ip, but with
+      the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
+     -->
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               tcp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
+   <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
+   <!ATTLIST urgent
+             pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.end
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.noop
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
+
+   <!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST tcp.mss
+             kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
+             length CDATA #FIXED "4"
+             size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+7.3.  UDPoXML DTD
+
+   <!--
+      DTD for UDP over XML.
+      Refer to this DTD as:
+
+      <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
+   -->
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
+
+   <!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
+                               udp.length)>
+
+   <!--
+      udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
+      the pseudoheader.
+    -->
+   <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
+   <!ATTLIST udp.length
+             value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+   XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
+   specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874].  Security considerations
+   that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
+   not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
+
+9.   References
+
+   [JABBER]    Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
+               February 2002. (Work in Progress)
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC791]    Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+               September 1981.
+
+   [RFC793]    Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+               793, September 1981.
+
+   [RFC894]    Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
+               Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
+
+   [RFC1042]   Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
+               Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
+               43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
+
+   [RFC1123]   Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+               Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
+
+   [RFC1874]   Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
+               1995.
+
+   [RFC2003]   Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
+               October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2279]   Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+               10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2460]   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+   [RFC3080]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
+               RFC 3080, March 2001.
+
+   [SOAP]      Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
+               Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
+               "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
+               Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
+
+   [XML]       Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
+               Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
+               Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
+               http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
+
+10.  Author's Address
+
+   Hugh Kennedy
+   Mimezine
+   1060 West Addison
+   Chicago, IL 60613
+   USA
+
+   EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3252         Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport      1 April 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kennedy                      Informational                     [Page 16]
+
diff --git a/tests/auto/q3urloperator/tst_q3urloperator.cpp b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/tst_q3urloperator.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8711fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/q3urloperator/tst_q3urloperator.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,783 @@
+/****************************************************************************
+**
+** Copyright (C) 2009 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies).
+** Contact: Qt Software Information (qt-info@nokia.com)
+**
+** This file is part of the test suite of the Qt Toolkit.
+**
+** $QT_BEGIN_LICENSE:LGPL$
+** No Commercial Usage
+** This file contains pre-release code and may not be distributed.
+** You may use this file in accordance with the terms and conditions
+** contained in the either Technology Preview License Agreement or the
+** Beta Release License Agreement.
+**
+** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage
+** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser
+** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software
+** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the
+** packaging of this file.  Please review the following information to
+** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements
+** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html.
+**
+** In addition, as a special exception, Nokia gives you certain
+** additional rights. These rights are described in the Nokia Qt LGPL
+** Exception version 1.0, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this
+** package.
+**
+** GNU General Public License Usage
+** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU
+** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software
+** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the
+** packaging of this file.  Please review the following information to
+** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be
+** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
+**
+** If you are unsure which license is appropriate for your use, please
+** contact the sales department at qt-sales@nokia.com.
+** $QT_END_LICENSE$
+**
+****************************************************************************/
+
+
+#include <QtTest/QtTest>
+
+#include <q3urloperator.h>
+#include <qtimer.h>
+#include <qapplication.h>
+#include <qfile.h>
+#include <qfileinfo.h>
+#include <qurlinfo.h>
+#include <q3network.h>
+#include <q3networkprotocol.h>
+#include <qtimer.h>
+#include <q3ptrlist.h>
+#include <q3valuelist.h>
+#include <qlist.h>
+
+//TESTED_CLASS=
+//TESTED_FILES=
+
+QT_FORWARD_DECLARE_CLASS(Q3NetworkOperation)
+
+class tst_Q3UrlOperator : public QObject
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+
+public:
+    tst_Q3UrlOperator();
+    virtual ~tst_Q3UrlOperator();
+
+
+
+public slots:
+    void initTestCase();
+    void cleanupTestCase();
+    void init();
+    void cleanup();
+private slots:
+    void copy_data();
+    void copy();
+    void put_data();
+    void put();
+    void rename_data();
+    void rename();
+    void stop_data();
+    void stop();
+    void listChildren_data();
+    void listChildren();
+
+protected slots:
+    void slotFinished_init( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+    void slotFinished_cleanup( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+
+    void slotFinished_copy( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+
+    void slotFinished_put( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+    void slotData_put( const QByteArray&, Q3NetworkOperation* );
+
+    void slotFinished_rename( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+    void slotItemChanged_rename( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+
+    void slotFinished_stop( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+    void slotDataTransferProgress_stop( int, int, Q3NetworkOperation* );
+
+    void slotFinished_listChildren( Q3NetworkOperation* );
+    void slotNewChildren_listChildren( const Q3ValueList<QUrlInfo> &, Q3NetworkOperation * );
+
+    void stopOperation();
+
+private:
+    Q3UrlOperator *urlOp;
+    QString ftpQtestUpload;
+    bool doStop;
+    bool finished;
+
+    Q3PtrList<Q3NetworkOperation> pendingOperations;
+    Q3NetworkProtocol::State finishedState;
+    int	finishedErrorCode;
+    QString finishedProtocolDetail;
+    Q3ValueList<QUrlInfo> listChildrenInfo;
+    QByteArray baData;
+    uint timeout_count;
+};
+
+//#define DUMP_SIGNALS
+
+tst_Q3UrlOperator::tst_Q3UrlOperator()
+{
+    q3InitNetworkProtocols();
+    timeout_count = 0;
+
+}
+
+tst_Q3UrlOperator::~tst_Q3UrlOperator()
+{
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::initTestCase()
+{
+    // create files for checking permissions
+    QFile textFile("listData/readOnly");
+    textFile.open(QIODevice::WriteOnly);
+    textFile.close();
+    textFile.setPermissions(QFile::ReadOwner | QFile::ReadUser | QFile::ReadGroup | QFile::ReadOther);
+    QFile exe("listData/executable.exe");
+    exe.open(QIODevice::WriteOnly);
+    exe.close();
+    exe.setPermissions(QFile::ReadOwner | QFile::ReadUser | QFile::ReadGroup | QFile::ReadOther |
+    		QFile::ExeOwner | QFile::ExeUser | QFile::ExeGroup | QFile::ExeOther);
+
+    // prepare: make sure that there is a unique directory for FTP upload
+    // testing (to avoid parallel executed tests interfere with each other)
+    ftpQtestUpload = "ftp://qt-test-server.troll.no/";
+    QString dir = QString( "qtest/upload/%1" ).arg( (ulong)this );
+
+    Q3UrlOperator opMkdir( ftpQtestUpload );
+
+    connect( &opMkdir, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_init(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+    if ( opMkdir.mkdir( dir ) != 0 ) {
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    qWarning( "Prepare: Network operation timed out for create directory" );
+    }
+    ftpQtestUpload += dir;
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_init( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+    if ( op->state() == Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed )
+	qWarning( QString( "Prepare: Can't create directory: network operation failed ('%1'). " ).arg(op->protocolDetail()) );
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::cleanupTestCase()
+{
+	// remove the files created before
+    QFile textFile("listData/readOnly");
+    textFile.setPermissions(textFile.permissions() | QFile::WriteOwner);
+    if (! textFile.remove())
+    	qWarning() << "could not remove file:" << textFile.error();
+    QFile exe("listData/executable.exe");
+    exe.setPermissions(textFile.permissions() | QFile::WriteOwner);
+    if (! exe.remove())
+    	qWarning() << "could not remove file:" << exe.error();
+
+    // cleanup: delete the unique directory for FTP upload testing
+    QStringList tmp = QStringList::split( '/', ftpQtestUpload, TRUE );
+    QString dir = tmp.last();
+    tmp.pop_back();
+    QString url = tmp.join( "/" );
+
+    Q3UrlOperator opRemove( url );
+    connect( &opRemove, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_cleanup(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+    if ( opRemove.remove( dir ) != 0 ) {
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    qWarning( "Cleanup: Network operation timed out for removing directory" );
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_cleanup( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+    if ( op->state() == Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed )
+	qWarning( QString( "Cleanup: Can't remove directory: network operation failed ('%1'). " ).arg(op->protocolDetail()) );
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::init()
+{
+    doStop = FALSE;
+    finished = FALSE;
+    pendingOperations.clear();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::cleanup()
+{
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::copy_data()
+{
+    const QString ftpQtest( "ftp://qt-test-server.troll.no/qtest" );
+    const QString httpQtest( "http://qt-test-server.troll.no/qtest" );
+
+    // argument for the constructor
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    // arguments for the copy()
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("from");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("to");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("move");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("toPath");
+
+    // FTP data
+    // QTest::newRow( "ftp00" ) << QString() << QString("%1/rfc3252.txt").arg(ftpQtest)	<< QString(".")		    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp01" ) << QString() << QString("%1/rfc3252").arg(ftpQtest)	<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp02" ) << QString("%1/").arg(ftpQtest) << QString("rfc3252.txt") << QString(".")		<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp03" ) << QString("%1/").arg(ftpQtest) << QString("rfc3252") << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp04" ) << QString("%1").arg(ftpQtest) << QString("rfc3252.txt")  << QString(".")		<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp05" ) << QString("%1").arg(ftpQtest) << QString("rfc3252")	    << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    // the ftp.faqs.org host is down that often, that it does not make sense to
+    // use it for automated tests
+    // QTest::newRow( "ftp06" ) << QString() << QString("ftp://ftp.faqs.org/rfc/rfc3252.txt") << QString(".") << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+
+    // HTTP data
+    QTest::newRow( "http00" ) << QString() << QString("%1/rfc3252.txt").arg(httpQtest)    << QString(".")		<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http01" ) << QString() << QString("%1/rfc3252").arg(httpQtest)	    << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http02" ) << QString() << QString("%1/").arg(httpQtest)		    << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    QTest::newRow( "http03" ) << QString("%1/").arg(httpQtest) << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< QString(".")		    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http04" ) << QString("%1/").arg(httpQtest) << QString("rfc3252")	<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http05" ) << QString("%1/").arg(httpQtest) << QString("")		<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http06" ) << QString("%1/").arg(httpQtest) << QString()	<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    QTest::newRow( "http07" ) << QString("%1").arg(httpQtest) << QString("rfc3252.txt")	<< QString(".")		    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http08" ) << QString("%1").arg(httpQtest) << QString("rfc3252")	<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http09" ) << QString("%1").arg(httpQtest) << QString("")		<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+    QTest::newRow( "http10" ) << QString("%1").arg(httpQtest) << QString()	<< QString("rfc3252.txt")    << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE;
+
+    // Unstable host:
+    // QTest::newRow( "http11" ) << QString() << QString("http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3252.txt") << QString(".") << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE;
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::copy()
+{
+    if (timeout_count >= 3) {
+        QFAIL( "Too many timeout's. Aborting test prematurely." );
+    }
+
+    QFETCH( QString, url );
+    QFETCH( QString, from );
+    QFETCH( QString, to );
+    QFETCH( bool, move );
+    QFETCH( bool, toPath );
+
+    if ( url.isNull() ) {
+	urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+    } else {
+	urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( url );
+    }
+    pendingOperations = urlOp->copy( from, to, move, toPath );
+
+    connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_copy(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 60 );
+    delete urlOp;
+    if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+    // test the results of the operation
+    if ( finished ) {
+	QVERIFY( finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone || finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed );
+	if ( finishedState == Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone ) {
+	    QFile file( "rfc3252.txt" );
+	    if ( !file.open( QIODevice::ReadOnly ) )
+		QFAIL( "Could not open downloaded file" );
+
+	    // ### this should move in the tesdata
+	    QFile fileRes( "copy.res/rfc3252.txt" );
+	    if ( !fileRes.open( QIODevice::ReadOnly ) )
+		QFAIL( "Could not open result file" );
+
+        QCOMPARE(file.readAll(), fileRes.readAll());
+
+	    // delete the downloaded file
+	    if ( !file.remove() )
+		QFAIL( QString("Cleanup failed: could not remove the downloaded file '%1'").arg(file.name()) );
+            timeout_count = 0;
+	} else {
+	    QFAIL( QString( "Network operation failed ('%1'). "
+			"This could be due to a temporary network failure. "
+			"If this test continues to fail, take a closer look").arg(finishedProtocolDetail) );
+            timeout_count++;
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_copy( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "finished( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    pendingOperations.remove( op );
+    // We are finished if either of this happens:
+    // - both, the get and the put of the copy are finished
+    // - we are in an error case (for the case that the get fails, no
+    //   finished() signal for the put is emitted since it is never executed)
+    if ( pendingOperations.isEmpty() || op->state()==Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed ) {
+	finished = TRUE;
+	finishedState = op->state();
+	finishedErrorCode = op->errorCode();
+	finishedProtocolDetail = op->protocolDetail();
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::put_data()
+{
+    const QString httpQtest( "http://qt-test-server.troll.no/qtest/cgi-bin" );
+    const QString httpQtestGet( "http://qt-test-server.troll.no/qtest/cgi-bin/retrieve_testfile.cgi" );
+
+    QByteArray putData_1( 5 );
+    putData_1[0] = 'a';
+    putData_1[1] = 'b';
+    putData_1[2] = '\n';
+    putData_1[3] = 'c';
+    putData_1[4] = 'd';
+
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("to");
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("putData");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("getUrl");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("rmUrl");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("rmFile");
+
+    // FTP data
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp00" )
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp00" << putData_1
+	<< QString("%1/put_ftp00").arg(ftpQtestUpload)
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp00";
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp01" )
+	<< QString() << QString("%1/put_ftp01").arg(ftpQtestUpload) << putData_1
+	<< QString("%1/put_ftp01").arg(ftpQtestUpload)
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp01";
+
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp02" )
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp02" << QByteArray(0)
+	<< QString("%1/put_ftp02").arg(ftpQtestUpload)
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp02";
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp03" )
+	<< QString() << QString("%1/put_ftp03").arg(ftpQtestUpload) << QByteArray(0)
+	<< QString("%1/put_ftp03").arg(ftpQtestUpload)
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "put_ftp03";
+    // HTTP data
+    QTest::newRow( "http00" )
+	<< httpQtest << "store_testfile.cgi" << putData_1
+	<< httpQtestGet
+	<< httpQtest << QString();
+    QTest::newRow( "http01" )
+	<< QString() << QString("%1/store_testfile.cgi").arg(httpQtest) << putData_1
+	<< httpQtestGet
+	<< httpQtest << QString();
+    QTest::newRow( "http02" )
+	<< httpQtest     << "store_testfile.cgi" << QByteArray(0)
+	<< httpQtestGet
+	<< httpQtest << QString();
+    QTest::newRow( "http03" ) << QString() << QString("%1/store_testfile.cgi").arg(httpQtest) << QByteArray(0)
+	<< httpQtestGet
+	<< httpQtest << QString();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::put()
+{
+    {
+	// do the put
+	QFETCH( QString, url );
+	QFETCH( QString, to );
+	QFETCH( QByteArray, putData );
+
+	if ( url.isNull() ) {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+	} else {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( url );
+	}
+
+	pendingOperations.append( urlOp->put( putData, to) );
+
+	connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_put(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	delete urlOp;
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+    }
+    {
+	// In order to test that the put was really successful, we have to get the
+	// file from the server.
+	QFETCH( QString, getUrl );
+	baData.resize( 0 );
+	Q3UrlOperator opGet( getUrl );
+	opGet.get();
+	connect( &opGet, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_put(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+	connect( &opGet, SIGNAL(data(const QByteArray&,Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotData_put(const QByteArray&,Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+	QTEST( baData, "putData" );
+    }
+    {
+	// cleanup: delete file (if possible)
+	QFETCH( QString, rmUrl );
+	QFETCH( QString, rmFile );
+	Q3UrlOperator opRemove( rmUrl );
+        connect( &opRemove, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_put(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+	if ( opRemove.remove( rmFile ) != 0 ) {
+            QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	    if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+		QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+	    QVERIFY( finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone || finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed );
+	    if ( finishedState != Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone ) {
+		QFAIL( QString( "Can't remove file: network operation failed ('%1'). " ).arg(finishedProtocolDetail) );
+	    }
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_put( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "finished( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    pendingOperations.remove( op );
+    QVERIFY( pendingOperations.isEmpty() );
+
+    finished = TRUE;
+    finishedState = op->state();
+    finishedErrorCode = op->errorCode();
+    finishedProtocolDetail = op->protocolDetail();
+
+    if (op->state() != Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed)
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotData_put( const QByteArray& ba, Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "data( %d, %p )", ba.size(), op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    int oldSize = baData.size();
+    baData.resize( ba.size() + oldSize );
+    memcpy( baData.data()+oldSize, ba.data(), ba.size() );
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::rename_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("oldname");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("newname");
+
+    QTest::newRow( "local00" ) << QString(".") << QString("foo") << QString("bar");
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::rename()
+{
+    {
+	// create direcotry first
+	QFETCH( QString, url );
+	QFETCH( QString, oldname );
+
+	if ( url.isNull() ) {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+	} else {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( url );
+	}
+
+	pendingOperations.append( urlOp->mkdir( oldname ) );
+
+	connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_rename(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	delete urlOp;
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+	QVERIFY( finishedState == Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone );
+    }
+    {
+	// rename directory
+	QFETCH( QString, url );
+	QFETCH( QString, oldname );
+	QFETCH( QString, newname );
+
+	if ( url.isNull() ) {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+	} else {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( url );
+	}
+
+	pendingOperations.append( urlOp->rename( oldname, newname ) );
+
+	connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_rename(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+	connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(itemChanged(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotItemChanged_rename(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	delete urlOp;
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+	QVERIFY( finishedState == Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone );
+    }
+    {
+	// delete direcotry
+	QFETCH( QString, url );
+	QFETCH( QString, newname );
+
+	if ( url.isNull() ) {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+	} else {
+	    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( url );
+	}
+
+	pendingOperations.append( urlOp->remove( newname ) );
+
+	connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_rename(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	delete urlOp;
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+	QVERIFY( finishedState == Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone );
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_rename( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "finished( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    pendingOperations.remove( op );
+    QVERIFY( pendingOperations.isEmpty() );
+
+    finished = TRUE;
+    finishedState = op->state();
+    finishedErrorCode = op->errorCode();
+    finishedProtocolDetail = op->protocolDetail();
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotItemChanged_rename( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "itemChanged( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    // ### what to do here?
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::stop_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("from");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("to");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("rmUrl");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("rmFile");
+
+    // FTP data
+    QTest::newRow( "ftp01" )
+	<< "stop/bigfile" << ftpQtestUpload
+	<< ftpQtestUpload << "bigfile";
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::stop()
+{
+    doStop = TRUE;
+    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator();
+    connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)),
+	    SLOT(slotFinished_stop(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+    connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(dataTransferProgress(int,int,Q3NetworkOperation*)),
+	    SLOT(slotDataTransferProgress_stop(int,int,Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+    {
+	// do the upload
+	QFETCH( QString, from );
+	QFETCH( QString, to );
+	pendingOperations = urlOp->copy( from, to );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+    }
+    doStop = FALSE;
+    {
+	// do the upload again (this time without stop) -- this used to fail
+	// until change 71380
+	QFETCH( QString, from );
+	QFETCH( QString, to );
+	pendingOperations = urlOp->copy( from, to );
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	    QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+    }
+    delete urlOp;
+
+    {
+	// cleanup: delete file (if possible)
+	QFETCH( QString, rmUrl );
+	QFETCH( QString, rmFile );
+	Q3UrlOperator opRemove( rmUrl );
+	connect( &opRemove, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)), SLOT(slotFinished_stop(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+	if ( opRemove.remove( rmFile ) != 0 ) {
+	    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+	    if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+		QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+	    QVERIFY( finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone || finishedState==Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed );
+	    if ( finishedState != Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone )
+		QFAIL( QString( "Can't remove file: network operation failed ('%1'). " ).arg(finishedProtocolDetail) );
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_stop( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "finished( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+
+    pendingOperations.remove( op );
+    // We are finished if either of this happens:
+    // - both, the get and the put of the copy are finished
+    // - we are in an error case (for the case that the get fails, no
+    //   finished() signal for the put is emitted since it is never executed)
+    if ( pendingOperations.isEmpty() || op->state()==Q3NetworkProtocol::StFailed ) {
+	finished = TRUE;
+	finishedState = op->state();
+	finishedErrorCode = op->errorCode();
+	finishedProtocolDetail = op->protocolDetail();
+
+	QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotDataTransferProgress_stop( int done, int total, Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "dataTransferProgress( %d, %d, %p )", done, total, op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    QVERIFY( done <= total );
+
+    if ( QTest::currentTestFunction() == QLatin1String("stop") ) {
+	// ### it would be nice if we could specify in our testdata when to do
+	// the stop
+	if ( doStop && pendingOperations.count()==1 ) {
+	    if ( done > 0 && done >= total/100000 ) {
+		// it is not safe to call stop() in a slot connected to the
+		// dataTransferProgress() signal (and it is not trivial to make
+		// it work)
+		QTimer::singleShot( 0, this, SLOT(stopOperation()) );
+		doStop = FALSE;
+	    }
+	}
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::stopOperation()
+{
+    if ( urlOp )
+	urlOp->stop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::listChildren_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("nameFilter");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("readable");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("writable");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("executable");
+    QTest::addColumn<int>("permissions");
+
+    QTest::newRow( "localfs00" )
+	<< QString("listData") << QString("readOnly")
+	<< (bool)TRUE << (bool)FALSE << (bool)FALSE << 0444;
+    QTest::newRow( "localfs01" )
+	<< QString("listData") << QString("executable.exe")
+	<< (bool)TRUE << (bool)FALSE << (bool)TRUE << 0555;
+    int permissions = 0755;
+#ifdef Q_OS_WIN
+    permissions = 0777;
+#endif
+    QTest::newRow( "localfs02" )
+	<< QString("listData") << QString("readWriteExec.exe")
+	<< (bool)TRUE << (bool)TRUE << (bool)TRUE << permissions;
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::listChildren()
+{
+    QFETCH( QString, url );
+    QFETCH( QString, nameFilter );
+    urlOp = new Q3UrlOperator( "listData" );
+    urlOp->setNameFilter( nameFilter );
+
+    pendingOperations.append( urlOp->listChildren() );
+
+    connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(finished(Q3NetworkOperation*)),
+	    SLOT(slotFinished_listChildren(Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+    connect( urlOp, SIGNAL(newChildren(const Q3ValueList<QUrlInfo>&, Q3NetworkOperation*)),
+	    SLOT(slotNewChildren_listChildren(const Q3ValueList<QUrlInfo>&, Q3NetworkOperation*)) );
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop( 30 );
+    delete urlOp;
+    if ( QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout() )
+	QFAIL( "Network operation timed out" );
+
+    QVERIFY( finishedState == Q3NetworkProtocol::StDone );
+    for ( int i=0; i<(int)listChildrenInfo.count(); i++ ) {
+	if ( listChildrenInfo[i].name() == "." || listChildrenInfo[i].name() == ".." )
+	    continue;
+
+	QFETCH( bool, readable );
+	QFETCH( bool, writable );
+	QFETCH( bool, executable );
+	QFETCH( int, permissions );
+	QCOMPARE( listChildrenInfo[i].isReadable(),   readable );
+	QCOMPARE( listChildrenInfo[i].isWritable(),   writable );
+
+	QCOMPARE( listChildrenInfo[i].isExecutable(), executable);
+	QCOMPARE( listChildrenInfo[i].permissions(), permissions );
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotFinished_listChildren( Q3NetworkOperation *op )
+{
+#if defined( DUMP_SIGNALS )
+    qDebug( "finished( %p )", op );
+#endif
+    QVERIFY( op != 0 );
+    pendingOperations.remove( op );
+    QVERIFY( pendingOperations.isEmpty() );
+
+    finished = TRUE;
+    finishedState = op->state();
+    finishedErrorCode = op->errorCode();
+    finishedProtocolDetail = op->protocolDetail();
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_Q3UrlOperator::slotNewChildren_listChildren( const Q3ValueList<QUrlInfo> &i, Q3NetworkOperation * )
+{
+    listChildrenInfo = i;
+}
+
+QTEST_MAIN(tst_Q3UrlOperator)
+#include "tst_q3urloperator.moc"