Long live Qt 4.5!

12 files changed, 22237 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitattributes b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f0cae99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+rfc3252.txt	-crlf
+bigfile	-crlf
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitignore b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2797fcd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+tst_qnetworkreply
+echo/echo
+echo/echo.exe
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/bigfile b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/bigfile
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb114a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/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/qnetworkreply/echo/echo.pro b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/echo/echo.pro
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bf791ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/echo/echo.pro
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+SOURCES += main.cpp
+QT = core
+CONFIG -= app_bundle debug_and_release_target
+CONFIG += console
+
+
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/echo/main.cpp b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/echo/main.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cf39788
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/echo/main.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+/****************************************************************************
+**
+** 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 <QtCore>
+
+int main(int argc, char **)
+{
+    if (argc < 2) {
+        printf("usage: echo\n");
+        printf("echos all its input to its output.\n");
+        return 1;
+    }
+    
+    QFile file;
+    file.open(stdin, QFile::ReadWrite);
+    QByteArray data = file.readAll();
+    file.close();
+
+    file.open(stdout, QFile::WriteOnly);
+    file.write(data);
+    file.close();
+    return 0;
+}
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/empty b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/empty
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/empty
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.pro b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.pro
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0bcf067
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.pro
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+TEMPLATE = subdirs
+SUBDIRS = test
+
+!wince*:SUBDIRS += echo
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.qrc b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.qrc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..85ca631
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/qnetworkreply.qrc
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+<!DOCTYPE RCC><RCC version="1.0">
+<qresource>
+   <file>resource</file>
+</qresource>
+</RCC>
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/resource b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/resource
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9b1460
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/resource
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                      L. Masinter
+Request for Comments: 2397                           Xerox Corporation
+Category: Standards Track                                  August 1998
+
+
+                         The "data" URL scheme
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+1. Abstract
+
+   A new URL scheme, "data", is defined. It allows inclusion of small
+   data items as "immediate" data, as if it had been included
+   externally.
+
+2. Description
+
+   Some applications that use URLs also have a need to embed (small)
+   media type data directly inline. This document defines a new URL
+   scheme that would work like 'immediate addressing'. The URLs are of
+   the form:
+
+                    data:[<mediatype>][;base64],<data>
+
+   The <mediatype> is an Internet media type specification (with
+   optional parameters.) The appearance of ";base64" means that the data
+   is encoded as base64. Without ";base64", the data (as a sequence of
+   octets) is represented using ASCII encoding for octets inside the
+   range of safe URL characters and using the standard %xx hex encoding
+   of URLs for octets outside that range.  If <mediatype> is omitted, it
+   defaults to text/plain;charset=US-ASCII.  As a shorthand,
+   "text/plain" can be omitted but the charset parameter supplied.
+
+   The "data:" URL scheme is only useful for short values. Note that
+   some applications that use URLs may impose a length limit; for
+   example, URLs embedded within <A> anchors in HTML have a length limit
+   determined by the SGML declaration for HTML [RFC1866]. The LITLEN
+   (1024) limits the number of characters which can appear in a single
+
+
+
+Masinter                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2397                 The "data" URL scheme               August 1998
+
+
+   attribute value literal, the ATTSPLEN (2100) limits the sum of all
+   lengths of all attribute value specifications which appear in a tag,
+   and the TAGLEN (2100) limits the overall length of a tag.
+
+   The "data" URL scheme has no relative URL forms.
+
+3. Syntax
+
+       dataurl    := "data:" [ mediatype ] [ ";base64" ] "," data
+       mediatype  := [ type "/" subtype ] *( ";" parameter )
+       data       := *urlchar
+       parameter  := attribute "=" value
+
+   where "urlchar" is imported from [RFC2396], and "type", "subtype",
+   "attribute" and "value" are the corresponding tokens from [RFC2045],
+   represented using URL escaped encoding of [RFC2396] as necessary.
+
+   Attribute values in [RFC2045] are allowed to be either represented as
+   tokens or as quoted strings. However, within a "data" URL, the
+   "quoted-string" representation would be awkward, since the quote mark
+   is itself not a valid urlchar. For this reason, parameter values
+   should use the URL Escaped encoding instead of quoted string if the
+   parameter values contain any "tspecial".
+
+   The ";base64" extension is distinguishable from a content-type
+   parameter by the fact that it doesn't have a following "=" sign.
+
+4. Examples
+
+   A data URL might be used for arbitrary types of data. The URL
+
+                          data:,A%20brief%20note
+
+   encodes the text/plain string "A brief note", which might be useful
+   in a footnote link.
+
+   The HTML fragment:
+
+   <IMG
+   SRC="
+   AAAC8IyPqcvt3wCcDkiLc7C0qwyGHhSWpjQu5yqmCYsapyuvUUlvONmOZtfzgFz
+   ByTB10QgxOR0TqBQejhRNzOfkVJ+5YiUqrXF5Y5lKh/DeuNcP5yLWGsEbtLiOSp
+   a/TPg7JpJHxyendzWTBfX0cxOnKPjgBzi4diinWGdkF8kjdfnycQZXZeYGejmJl
+   ZeGl9i2icVqaNVailT6F5iJ90m6mvuTS4OK05M0vDk0Q4XUtwvKOzrcd3iq9uis
+   F81M1OIcR7lEewwcLp7tuNNkM3uNna3F2JQFo97Vriy/Xl4/f1cf5VWzXyym7PH
+   hhx4dbgYKAAA7"
+   ALT="Larry">
+
+
+
+
+Masinter                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2397                 The "data" URL scheme               August 1998
+
+
+   could be used for a small inline image in a HTML document.  (The
+   embedded image is probably near the limit of utility. For anything
+   else larger, data URLs are likely to be inappropriate.)
+
+   A data URL scheme's media type specification can include other
+   parameters; for example, one might specify a charset parameter.
+
+      data:text/plain;charset=iso-8859-7,%be%fg%be
+
+   can be used for a short sequence of greek characters.
+
+   Some applications may use the "data" URL scheme in order to provide
+   setup parameters for other kinds of networking applications. For
+   example, one might create a media type
+           application/vnd-xxx-query
+
+   whose content consists of a query string and a database identifier
+   for the "xxx" vendor's databases. A URL of the form:
+
+   data:application/vnd-xxx-
+   query,select_vcount,fcol_from_fieldtable/local
+
+   could then be used in a local application to launch the "helper" for
+   application/vnd-xxx-query and give it the immediate data included.
+
+5. History
+
+   This idea was originally proposed August 1995. Some versions of the
+   data URL scheme have been used in the definition of VRML, and a
+   version has appeared as part of a proposal for embedded data in HTML.
+   Various changes have been made, based on requests, to elide the media
+   type, pack the indication of the base64 encoding more tightly, and
+   eliminate "quoted printable" as an encoding since it would not easily
+   yield valid URLs without additional %xx encoding, which itself is
+   sufficient. The "data" URL scheme is in use in VRML, new applications
+   of HTML, and various commercial products. It is being used for object
+   parameters in Java and ActiveX applications.
+
+6. Security
+
+   Interpretation of the data within a "data" URL has the same security
+   considerations as any implementation of the given media type.  An
+   application should not interpret the contents of a data URL which is
+   marked with a media type that has been disallowed for processing by
+   the application's configuration.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Masinter                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2397                 The "data" URL scheme               August 1998
+
+
+   Sites which use firewall proxies to disallow the retrieval of certain
+   media types (such as application script languages or types with known
+   security problems) will find it difficult to screen against the
+   inclusion of such types using the "data" URL scheme.  However, they
+   should be aware of the threat and take whatever precautions are
+   considered necessary within their domain.
+
+   The effect of using long "data" URLs in applications is currently
+   unknown; some software packages may exhibit unreasonable behavior
+   when confronted with data that exceeds its allocated buffer size.
+
+7. References
+
+   [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
+               "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC
+               2396, August 1998.
+
+   [RFC1866]   Berners-Lee, T., and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup
+               Language - 2.0.", RFC 1866, November 1995.
+
+   [RFC2045]   Freed N., and N. Borenstein., "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+               Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
+               Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+Author contact information:
+
+   Larry Masinter
+   Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
+   3333 Coyote Hill Road
+   Palo Alto, CA 94304
+
+   EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Masinter                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2397                 The "data" URL scheme               August 1998
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Masinter                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/rfc3252.txt b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/rfc3252.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b80c61b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/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/qnetworkreply/test/test.pro b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/test/test.pro
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..71f76a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/test/test.pro
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+load(qttest_p4)
+SOURCES  += ../tst_qnetworkreply.cpp
+TARGET = ../tst_qnetworkreply
+
+win32 {
+  CONFIG(debug, debug|release) {
+    TARGET = ../../debug/tst_qnetworkreply
+} else {
+    TARGET = ../../release/tst_qnetworkreply
+  }
+}
+
+DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"$$PWD/..\\\"
+
+QT = core network
+RESOURCES += ../qnetworkreply.qrc
+
+wince*: {
+    addFiles.sources = ../empty ../rfc3252.txt ../resource
+    addFiles.path = .
+    DEPLOYMENT += addFiles
+}
diff --git a/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/tst_qnetworkreply.cpp b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/tst_qnetworkreply.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..503118a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/auto/qnetworkreply/tst_qnetworkreply.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,2971 @@
+/****************************************************************************
+**
+** 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 <QtCore/QCryptographicHash>
+#include <QtCore/QDataStream>
+#include <QtCore/QUrl>
+#include <QtCore/QEventLoop>
+#include <QtCore/QFile>
+#include <QtCore/QSharedPointer>
+#include <QtCore/QTemporaryFile>
+#include <QtNetwork/QTcpServer>
+#include <QtNetwork/QTcpSocket>
+#include <QtNetwork/QLocalSocket>
+#include <QtNetwork/QLocalServer>
+#include <QtNetwork/QFtp>
+#include <QtNetwork/qauthenticator.h>
+#include <QtNetwork/qnetworkaccessmanager.h>
+#include <QtNetwork/qnetworkrequest.h>
+#include <QtNetwork/qnetworkreply.h>
+#include <QtNetwork/qnetworkcookie.h>
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+#include <QtNetwork/qsslerror.h>
+#include <QtNetwork/qsslconfiguration.h>
+#endif
+
+#include <time.h>
+
+#include "private/qnetworkaccessmanager_p.h"
+
+#include "../network-settings.h"
+
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QNetworkReply*)
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QAuthenticator*)
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QNetworkProxy)
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QNetworkProxyQuery)
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QList<QNetworkProxy>)
+Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QNetworkReply::NetworkError)
+
+class QNetworkReplyPtr: public QSharedPointer<QNetworkReply>
+{
+public:
+    inline QNetworkReplyPtr(QNetworkReply *ptr = 0)
+        : QSharedPointer<QNetworkReply>(ptr)
+    { }
+
+    inline operator QNetworkReply *() const { return data(); }
+};
+
+class MyCookieJar;
+class tst_QNetworkReply: public QObject
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+
+    QEventLoop *loop;
+    enum RunSimpleRequestReturn { Timeout = 0, Success, Failure };
+    int returnCode;
+    QString testFileName;
+#if !defined Q_OS_WIN
+    QString wronlyFileName;
+#endif
+    QString uniqueExtension;
+    QNetworkAccessManager manager;
+    MyCookieJar *cookieJar;
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    QSslConfiguration storedSslConfiguration;
+#endif
+
+public:
+    tst_QNetworkReply();
+    QString runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::Operation op, const QNetworkRequest &request,
+                             QNetworkReplyPtr &reply, const QByteArray &data = QByteArray());
+
+public Q_SLOTS:
+    void finished();
+    void gotError();
+    void authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*);
+    void proxyAuthenticationRequired(const QNetworkProxy &,QAuthenticator*);
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    void sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,const QList<QSslError> &);
+    void storeSslConfiguration();
+#endif
+
+protected Q_SLOTS:
+    void nestedEventLoops_slot();
+
+private Q_SLOTS:
+    void init();
+    void cleanup();
+    void initTestCase();
+    void cleanupTestCase();
+
+    void stateChecking();
+    void invalidProtocol();
+    void getFromData_data();
+    void getFromData();
+    void getFromFile();
+    void getFromFileSpecial_data();
+    void getFromFileSpecial();
+    void getFromFtp_data();
+    void getFromFtp();
+    void getFromHttp_data();
+    void getFromHttp();
+    void getErrors_data();
+    void getErrors();
+    void putToFile_data();
+    void putToFile();
+    void putToFtp_data();
+    void putToFtp();
+    void putToHttp_data();
+    void putToHttp();
+    void postToHttp_data();
+    void postToHttp();
+
+    void ioGetFromData_data();
+    void ioGetFromData();
+    void ioGetFromFileSpecial_data();
+    void ioGetFromFileSpecial();
+    void ioGetFromFile_data();
+    void ioGetFromFile();
+    void ioGetFromFtp_data();
+    void ioGetFromFtp();
+    void ioGetFromFtpWithReuse();
+    void ioGetFromHttp();
+
+    void ioGetFromHttpWithReuseParallel();
+    void ioGetFromHttpWithReuseSequential();
+    void ioGetFromHttpWithAuth();
+    void ioGetFromHttpWithProxyAuth();
+    void ioGetFromHttpWithSocksProxy();
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    void ioGetFromHttpsWithSslErrors();
+    void ioGetFromHttpsWithIgnoreSslErrors();
+    void ioGetFromHttpsWithSslHandshakeError();
+#endif
+
+    void ioGetWithManyProxies_data();
+    void ioGetWithManyProxies();
+
+    void ioPutToFileFromFile_data();
+    void ioPutToFileFromFile();
+    void ioPutToFileFromSocket_data();
+    void ioPutToFileFromSocket();
+    void ioPutToFileFromLocalSocket_data();
+    void ioPutToFileFromLocalSocket();
+    void ioPutToFileFromProcess_data();
+    void ioPutToFileFromProcess();
+    void ioPutToFtpFromFile_data();
+    void ioPutToFtpFromFile();
+    void ioPutToHttpFromFile_data();
+    void ioPutToHttpFromFile();
+    void ioPostToHttpFromFile_data();
+    void ioPostToHttpFromFile();
+
+    void rateControl_data();
+    void rateControl();
+    void downloadPerformance();
+    void uploadPerformance();
+    void performanceControlRate();
+
+    void downloadProgress_data();
+    void downloadProgress();
+    void uploadProgress_data();
+    void uploadProgress();
+
+    void chaining_data();
+    void chaining();
+
+    void receiveCookiesFromHttp_data();
+    void receiveCookiesFromHttp();
+    void sendCookies_data();
+    void sendCookies();
+
+    void nestedEventLoops();
+
+    void httpProxyCommands_data();
+    void httpProxyCommands();
+    void proxyChange();
+};
+
+QT_BEGIN_NAMESPACE
+
+namespace QTest {
+    template<>
+    char *toString(const QNetworkReply::NetworkError& code)
+    {
+        const QMetaObject *mo = &QNetworkReply::staticMetaObject;
+        int index = mo->indexOfEnumerator("NetworkError");
+        if (index == -1)
+            return qstrdup("");
+
+        QMetaEnum qme = mo->enumerator(index);
+        return qstrdup(qme.valueToKey(code));
+    }
+
+    template<>
+    char *toString(const QNetworkCookie &cookie)
+    {
+        return qstrdup(cookie.toRawForm());
+    }
+
+    template<>
+    char *toString(const QList<QNetworkCookie> &list)
+    {
+        QString result = "QList(";
+        bool first = true;
+        foreach (QNetworkCookie cookie, list) {
+            if (!first)
+                result += ", ";
+            first = false;
+            result += QString::fromLatin1("QNetworkCookie(%1)").arg(QLatin1String(cookie.toRawForm()));
+        }
+
+        return qstrdup(result.append(')').toLocal8Bit());
+    }
+}
+
+QT_END_NAMESPACE
+
+#define RUN_REQUEST(call)                       \
+    do {                                        \
+        QString errorMsg = call;                \
+        if (!errorMsg.isEmpty())                \
+            QFAIL(qPrintable(errorMsg));        \
+    } while (0);
+
+class MiniHttpServer: public QTcpServer
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    QTcpSocket *client;
+
+public:
+    QByteArray dataToTransmit;
+    QByteArray receivedData;
+    bool doClose;
+
+    MiniHttpServer(const QByteArray &data) : client(0), dataToTransmit(data), doClose(true)
+    {
+        listen();
+        connect(this, SIGNAL(newConnection()), this, SLOT(doAccept()));
+    }
+
+public slots:
+    void doAccept()
+    {
+        client = nextPendingConnection();
+        connect(client, SIGNAL(readyRead()), this, SLOT(sendData()));
+    }
+
+    void sendData()
+    {
+        receivedData += client->readAll();
+        if (receivedData.contains("\r\n\r\n") ||
+            receivedData.contains("\n\n")) {
+            client->write(dataToTransmit);
+            if (doClose) {
+                client->disconnectFromHost();
+                disconnect(client, 0, this, 0);
+                client = 0;
+            }
+        }
+    }
+};
+
+class MyCookieJar: public QNetworkCookieJar
+{
+public:
+    inline QList<QNetworkCookie> allCookies() const
+        { return QNetworkCookieJar::allCookies(); }
+    inline void setAllCookies(const QList<QNetworkCookie> &cookieList)
+        { QNetworkCookieJar::setAllCookies(cookieList); }
+};
+
+class MyProxyFactory: public QNetworkProxyFactory
+{
+public:
+    int callCount;
+    QList<QNetworkProxy> toReturn;
+    QNetworkProxyQuery lastQuery;
+    inline MyProxyFactory() { clear(); }
+
+    inline void clear()
+    {
+        callCount = 0;
+        toReturn = QList<QNetworkProxy>() << QNetworkProxy::DefaultProxy;
+        lastQuery = QNetworkProxyQuery();
+    }
+
+    virtual QList<QNetworkProxy> queryProxy(const QNetworkProxyQuery &query)
+    {
+        lastQuery = query;
+        ++callCount;
+        return toReturn;
+    }
+};
+
+class DataReader: public QObject
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+public:
+    qint64 totalBytes;
+    QByteArray data;
+    QIODevice *device;
+    bool accumulate;
+    DataReader(QIODevice *dev, bool acc = true) : totalBytes(0), device(dev), accumulate(acc)
+    {
+        connect(device, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(doRead()));
+    }
+
+public slots:
+    void doRead()
+    {
+        QByteArray buffer;
+        buffer.resize(device->bytesAvailable());
+        qint64 bytesRead = device->read(buffer.data(), device->bytesAvailable());
+        if (bytesRead == -1) {
+            QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+            return;
+        }
+        buffer.truncate(bytesRead);
+        totalBytes += bytesRead;
+
+        if (accumulate)
+            data += buffer;
+    }
+};
+
+class DataGenerator: public QIODevice
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    enum { Idle, Started, Stopped } state;
+public:
+    DataGenerator() : state(Idle)
+    { open(ReadOnly); }
+
+    virtual bool isSequential() const { return true; }
+    virtual qint64 bytesAvailable() const { return state == Started ? 1024*1024 : 0; }
+
+public slots:
+    void start() { state = Started; emit readyRead(); }
+    void stop() { state = Stopped; emit readyRead(); }
+
+protected:
+    virtual qint64 readData(char *data, qint64 maxlen)
+    {
+        if (state == Stopped)
+            return -1;          // EOF
+        // return as many bytes as are wanted
+        memset(data, '@', maxlen);
+        return maxlen;
+    }
+    virtual qint64 writeData(const char *, qint64)
+    { return -1; }
+};
+
+class SocketPair: public QObject
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+public:
+    QIODevice *endPoints[2];
+
+    SocketPair(QObject *parent = 0)
+        : QObject(parent)
+    {
+        endPoints[0] = endPoints[1] = 0;
+    }
+
+    bool create()
+    {
+        QTcpServer server;
+        server.listen();
+
+        QTcpSocket *active = new QTcpSocket(this);
+        active->connectToHost("127.0.0.1", server.serverPort());
+        if (!active->waitForConnected(10))
+            return false;
+
+        if (!server.waitForNewConnection(10))
+            return false;
+        QTcpSocket *passive = server.nextPendingConnection();
+        passive->setParent(this);
+
+        endPoints[0] = active;
+        endPoints[1] = passive;
+        return true;
+    }
+};
+
+class FastSender: public QThread
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    QSemaphore ready;
+    qint64 wantedSize;
+    int port;
+public:
+    int transferRate;
+    QWaitCondition cond;
+    FastSender(qint64 size)
+        : wantedSize(size), port(-1), transferRate(-1)
+    {
+        start();
+        ready.acquire();
+    }
+
+    inline int serverPort() const { return port; }
+
+protected:
+    void run()
+    {
+        QTcpServer server;
+        server.listen();
+        port = server.serverPort();
+        ready.release();
+
+        server.waitForNewConnection(-1);
+        QTcpSocket *client = server.nextPendingConnection();
+
+        // get the "request" packet
+        if (!client->waitForReadyRead(2000)) {
+            qDebug() << client->error() << "waiting for \"request\" packet";
+            return;
+        }
+        client->readAll();      // we're not interested in the actual contents
+
+        enum { BlockSize = 256 };
+        QByteArray data;
+        {
+            QDataStream stream(&data, QIODevice::WriteOnly);
+            stream << QVariantMap() << QByteArray(BlockSize, 'a');
+        }
+        qint32 size = data.size();
+
+        // write a bunch of bytes to fill up the buffers
+        do {
+            client->write((char*)&size, sizeof size);
+            client->write(data);
+            while (client->bytesToWrite() > 0)
+                if (!client->waitForBytesWritten(0))
+                    break;
+        } while (client->bytesToWrite() == 0);
+
+        // the kernel buffer is full
+        // clean up QAbstractSocket's residue:
+        while (client->bytesToWrite() > 0)
+            if (!client->waitForBytesWritten(2000)) {
+                qDebug() << client->error() << "cleaning up residue";
+                return;
+            }
+
+        // now write in "blocking mode"
+        QTime timer;
+        timer.start();
+        qint64 totalBytes = 0;
+        while (totalBytes < wantedSize) {
+            int bytesToWrite = wantedSize - totalBytes;
+            Q_ASSERT(bytesToWrite);
+            if (bytesToWrite > BlockSize) {
+                bytesToWrite = BlockSize;
+            } else {
+                QDataStream stream(&data, QIODevice::WriteOnly);
+                stream << QVariantMap() << QByteArray(bytesToWrite, 'b');
+            }
+            size = data.size();
+            client->write((char*)&size, sizeof size);
+            client->write(data);
+            totalBytes += bytesToWrite;
+
+            while (client->bytesToWrite() > 0)
+                if (!client->waitForBytesWritten(2000)) {
+                    qDebug() << client->error() << "blocking write";
+                    return;
+                }
+//            qDebug() << bytesToWrite << "bytes written now;"
+//                     << totalBytes << "total ("
+//                     << totalBytes*100/wantedSize << "% complete);"
+//                     << timer.elapsed() << "ms elapsed";
+        }
+
+        transferRate = totalBytes * 1000 / timer.elapsed();
+        qDebug() << "flushed" << totalBytes << "bytes in" << timer.elapsed() << "ms: rate =" << transferRate;
+
+        // write a "close connection" packet
+        {
+            QDataStream stream(&data, QIODevice::WriteOnly);
+            stream << QVariantMap() << QByteArray();
+        }
+        size = data.size();
+        client->write((char*)&size, sizeof size);
+        client->write(data);
+    }
+};
+
+class RateControlledReader: public QObject
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    QIODevice *device;
+    int bytesToRead;
+    int interval;
+public:
+    qint64 totalBytesRead;
+    RateControlledReader(QIODevice *dev, int kbPerSec)
+        : device(dev), totalBytesRead(0)
+    {
+        // determine how often we have to wake up
+        bytesToRead = kbPerSec * 1024 / 20;
+        interval = 50;
+
+        qDebug() << "RateControlledReader: going to read" << bytesToRead
+                 << "bytes every" << interval << "ms";
+        qDebug() << "actual rate will be"
+                 << (bytesToRead * 1000 / interval) << "bytes/sec (wanted"
+                 << kbPerSec * 1024 << "bytes/sec)";
+        startTimer(interval);
+    }
+
+protected:
+    void timerEvent(QTimerEvent *)
+    {
+        qint64 bytesRead = 0;
+        QTime stopWatch;
+        stopWatch.start();
+        do {
+            if (device->bytesAvailable() == 0)
+                if (stopWatch.elapsed() > 10 || !device->waitForReadyRead(5))
+                    break;
+            QByteArray data = device->read(bytesToRead - bytesRead);
+            bytesRead += data.size();
+        } while (bytesRead < bytesToRead);// && stopWatch.elapsed() < interval/4);
+        totalBytesRead += bytesRead;
+
+        if (bytesRead < bytesToRead)
+            qWarning() << bytesToRead - bytesRead << "bytes not read";
+    }
+};
+
+class TimedSender: public QThread
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    qint64 totalBytes;
+    QSemaphore ready;
+    QByteArray dataToSend;
+    QTcpSocket *client;
+    int timeout;
+    int port;
+public:
+    int transferRate;
+    TimedSender(int ms)
+        : totalBytes(0), timeout(ms), port(-1), transferRate(-1)
+    {
+        dataToSend = QByteArray(16*1024, '@');
+        start();
+        ready.acquire();
+    }
+
+    inline int serverPort() const { return port; }
+
+private slots:
+    void writeMore()
+    {
+        while (client->bytesToWrite() < 128 * 1024) {
+            writePacket(dataToSend);
+        }
+    }
+
+protected:
+    void run()
+    {
+        QTcpServer server;
+        server.listen();
+        port = server.serverPort();
+        ready.release();
+
+        server.waitForNewConnection(-1);
+        client = server.nextPendingConnection();
+
+        writeMore();
+        connect(client, SIGNAL(bytesWritten(qint64)), SLOT(writeMore()), Qt::DirectConnection);
+
+        QEventLoop eventLoop;
+        QTimer::singleShot(timeout, &eventLoop, SLOT(quit()));
+
+        QTime timer;
+        timer.start();
+        eventLoop.exec();
+        disconnect(client, SIGNAL(bytesWritten(qint64)), this, 0);
+
+        // wait for the connection to shut down
+        client->disconnectFromHost();
+        if (!client->waitForDisconnected(10000))
+            return;
+
+        transferRate = totalBytes * 1000 / timer.elapsed();
+        qDebug() << "receive rate:" << (transferRate / 1024) << "kB/s in"
+                 << timer.elapsed() << "ms";
+    }
+
+    void writePacket(const QByteArray &array)
+    {
+        client->write(array);
+        totalBytes += array.size();
+    }
+};
+
+class ThreadedDataReader: public QThread
+{
+    Q_OBJECT
+    QSemaphore ready;
+    QTcpSocket *client;
+    int timeout;
+    int port;
+public:
+    int transferRate;
+    ThreadedDataReader()
+        : port(-1), transferRate(-1)
+    {
+        start();
+        ready.acquire();
+    }
+
+    inline int serverPort() const { return port; }
+
+protected:
+    void run()
+    {
+        QTcpServer server;
+        server.listen();
+        port = server.serverPort();
+        ready.release();
+
+        server.waitForNewConnection(-1);
+        client = server.nextPendingConnection();
+
+        QEventLoop eventLoop;
+        DataReader reader(client, false);
+        QObject::connect(client, SIGNAL(disconnected()), &eventLoop, SLOT(quit()));
+
+        QTime timer;
+        timer.start();
+        eventLoop.exec();
+
+        transferRate = reader.totalBytes * 1000 / timer.elapsed();
+        qDebug() << "send rate:" << (transferRate / 1024) << "kB/s";
+    }
+};
+
+tst_QNetworkReply::tst_QNetworkReply()
+{
+    testFileName = QDir::currentPath() + "/testfile";
+#ifndef Q_OS_WINCE
+    uniqueExtension = QString("%1%2%3").arg((qulonglong)this).arg(rand()).arg((qulonglong)time(0));
+#else
+    uniqueExtension = QString("%1%2").arg((qulonglong)this).arg(rand());
+#endif
+    cookieJar = new MyCookieJar;
+    manager.setCookieJar(cookieJar);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*, QAuthenticator* auth)
+{
+    auth->setUser("httptest");
+    auth->setPassword("httptest");
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::proxyAuthenticationRequired(const QNetworkProxy &, QAuthenticator* auth)
+{
+    auth->setUser("qsockstest");
+    auth->setPassword("password");
+}
+
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+void tst_QNetworkReply::sslErrors(QNetworkReply *reply, const QList<QSslError> &errors)
+{
+    reply->ignoreSslErrors();
+    QVERIFY(!errors.isEmpty());
+    QVERIFY(!reply->sslConfiguration().isNull());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::storeSslConfiguration()
+{
+    storedSslConfiguration = QSslConfiguration();
+    QNetworkReply *reply = qobject_cast<QNetworkReply *>(sender());
+    if (reply)
+        storedSslConfiguration = reply->sslConfiguration();
+}
+#endif
+
+QString tst_QNetworkReply::runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::Operation op,
+                                            const QNetworkRequest &request,
+                                            QNetworkReplyPtr &reply,
+                                            const QByteArray &data)
+{
+    switch (op) {
+    case QNetworkAccessManager::HeadOperation:
+        reply = manager.head(request);
+        break;
+
+    case QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation:
+        reply = manager.get(request);
+        break;
+
+    case QNetworkAccessManager::PutOperation:
+        reply = manager.put(request, data);
+        break;
+
+    case QNetworkAccessManager::PostOperation:
+        reply = manager.post(request, data);
+        break;
+
+    default:
+        Q_ASSERT_X(false, "tst_QNetworkReply", "Invalid/unknown operation requested");
+    }
+    reply->setParent(this);
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), SLOT(finished()));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(error(QNetworkReply::NetworkError)), SLOT(gotError()));
+
+    returnCode = Timeout;
+    loop = new QEventLoop;
+    QTimer::singleShot(20000, loop, SLOT(quit()));
+    int code = returnCode == Timeout ? loop->exec() : returnCode;
+    delete loop;
+    loop = 0;
+
+    switch (code) {
+    case Failure:
+        return "Request failed: " + reply->errorString();
+    case Timeout:
+        return "Network timeout";
+    }
+    return QString();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::finished()
+{
+    loop->exit(returnCode = Success);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::gotError()
+{
+    loop->exit(returnCode = Failure);
+    disconnect(QObject::sender(), SIGNAL(finished()), this, 0);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::initTestCase()
+{
+#if !defined Q_OS_WIN
+    wronlyFileName = QDir::currentPath() + "/write-only";
+    QFile wr(wronlyFileName);
+    QVERIFY(wr.open(QIODevice::WriteOnly | QIODevice::Truncate));
+    wr.setPermissions(QFile::WriteOwner | QFile::WriteUser);
+    wr.close();
+#endif
+
+    QDir::setSearchPaths("srcdir", QStringList() << SRCDIR);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::cleanupTestCase()
+{
+#if !defined Q_OS_WIN
+    QFile::remove(wronlyFileName);
+#endif
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::init()
+{
+    cleanup();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::cleanup()
+{
+    QFile file(testFileName);
+    QVERIFY(!file.exists() || file.remove());
+
+    // clear the internal cache
+    QNetworkAccessManagerPrivate::clearCache(&manager);
+    manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+    // clear cookies
+    cookieJar->setAllCookies(QList<QNetworkCookie>());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::stateChecking()
+{
+    QUrl url = QUrl("file:///");
+    QNetworkRequest req(url);   // you can't open this file, I know
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(req);
+
+    QVERIFY(reply.data());
+    QVERIFY(reply->isOpen());
+    QVERIFY(reply->isReadable());
+    QVERIFY(!reply->isWritable());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->errorString(), QString("Unknown error"));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->manager(), &manager);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->request(), req);
+    QCOMPARE(int(reply->operation()), int(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation));
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+
+    reply->abort();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::invalidProtocol()
+{
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromEncoded("not-a-known-protocol://foo/bar");
+    QNetworkRequest req(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    QString errorMsg = "Request failed: Protocol \"not-a-known-protocol\" is unknown";
+    QString result = runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, req, reply);
+    QCOMPARE(result, errorMsg);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::ProtocolUnknownError);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromData_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("request");
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("expected");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("mimeType");
+
+    const QString defaultMimeType("text/plain;charset=US-ASCII");
+
+    //QTest::newRow("empty") << "data:" << QByteArray() << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("empty2") << "data:," << QByteArray() << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("just-charset_1") << "data:charset=iso-8859-1,"
+                                    << QByteArray() << "text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1";
+    QTest::newRow("just-charset_2") << "data:charset = iso-8859-1 ,"
+                                    << QByteArray() << "text/plain;charset = iso-8859-1";
+    //QTest::newRow("just-media") << "data:text/xml" << QByteArray() << "text/xml";
+    QTest::newRow("just-media2") << "data:text/xml," << QByteArray() << "text/xml";
+
+    QTest::newRow("plain_1") << "data:,foo" << QByteArray("foo") << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("plain_2") << "data:text/html,Hello World" << QByteArray("Hello World")
+                             << "text/html";
+    QTest::newRow("plain_3") << "data:text/html;charset=utf-8,Hello World"
+                             << QByteArray("Hello World") << "text/html;charset=utf-8";
+
+    QTest::newRow("pct_1") << "data:,%3Cbody%20contentEditable%3Dtrue%3E%0D%0A"
+                           << QByteArray("<body contentEditable=true>\r\n") << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("pct_2") << "data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%3Cbody%20contentEditable%3Dtrue%3E%0D%0A"
+                           << QByteArray("<body contentEditable=true>\r\n")
+                           << "text/html;charset=utf-8";
+
+    QTest::newRow("base64-empty_1") << "data:;base64," << QByteArray() << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("base64-empty_2") << "data:charset=utf-8;base64," << QByteArray()
+                                    << "text/plain;charset=utf-8";
+    QTest::newRow("base64-empty_3") << "data:text/html;charset=utf-8;base64,"
+                                    << QByteArray() << "text/html;charset=utf-8";
+
+    QTest::newRow("base64_1") << "data:;base64,UXQgaXMgZ3JlYXQh" << QByteArray("Qt is great!")
+                              << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("base64_2") << "data:charset=utf-8;base64,UXQgaXMgZ3JlYXQh"
+                              << QByteArray("Qt is great!") << "text/plain;charset=utf-8";
+    QTest::newRow("base64_3") << "data:text/html;charset=utf-8;base64,UXQgaXMgZ3JlYXQh"
+                              << QByteArray("Qt is great!") << "text/html;charset=utf-8";
+
+    QTest::newRow("pct-nul") << "data:,a%00g" << QByteArray("a\0g", 3) << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("base64-nul") << "data:;base64,YQBn" << QByteArray("a\0g", 3) << defaultMimeType;
+    QTest::newRow("pct-nonutf8") << "data:,a%E1g" << QByteArray("a\xE1g", 3) << defaultMimeType;
+
+    QTest::newRow("base64")
+        << QString::fromLatin1("data:application/xml;base64,PGUvPg==")
+        << QByteArray("<e/>")
+        << "application/xml";
+
+    QTest::newRow("base64, no media type")
+        << QString::fromLatin1("data:;base64,PGUvPg==")
+        << QByteArray("<e/>")
+        << defaultMimeType;
+
+    QTest::newRow("Percent encoding")
+        << QString::fromLatin1("data:application/xml,%3Ce%2F%3E")
+        << QByteArray("<e/>")
+        << "application/xml";
+
+    QTest::newRow("Percent encoding, no media type")
+        << QString::fromLatin1("data:,%3Ce%2F%3E")
+        << QByteArray("<e/>")
+        << defaultMimeType;
+
+    QTest::newRow("querychars")
+        << QString::fromLatin1("data:,foo?x=0&y=0")
+        << QByteArray("foo?x=0&y=0")
+        << defaultMimeType;
+
+    QTest::newRow("css") << "data:text/css,div%20{%20border-right:%20solid;%20}"
+                         << QByteArray("div { border-right: solid; }")
+                         << "text/css";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromData()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, request);
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, expected);
+    QFETCH(QString, mimeType);
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromEncoded(request.toLatin1());
+    QNetworkRequest req(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, req, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentTypeHeader).toString(), mimeType);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), qint64(expected.size()));
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), expected);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromFile()
+{
+    // create the file:
+    QTemporaryFile file(QDir::currentPath() + "/temp-XXXXXX");
+    file.setAutoRemove(true);
+    QVERIFY(file.open());
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName()));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    static const char fileData[] = "This is some data that is in the file.\r\n";
+    QByteArray data = QByteArray::fromRawData(fileData, sizeof fileData - 1);
+    QVERIFY(file.write(data) == data.size());
+    file.flush();
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), file.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), data);
+
+    // make the file bigger
+    file.resize(0);
+    const int multiply = (128 * 1024) / (sizeof fileData - 1);
+    for (int i = 0; i < multiply; ++i)
+        file.write(fileData, sizeof fileData - 1);
+    file.flush();
+
+    // run again
+    reply = 0;
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), file.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reply->readAll().size()), file.size());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromFileSpecial_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("fileName");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+
+    QTest::newRow("resource") << ":/resource" <<  "qrc:/resource";
+    QTest::newRow("search-path") << "srcdir:/rfc3252.txt" << "srcdir:/rfc3252.txt";
+    QTest::newRow("bigfile-path") << "srcdir:/bigfile" << "srcdir:/bigfile";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromFileSpecial()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+
+    // open the resource so we can find out its size
+    QFile resource(fileName);
+    QVERIFY(resource.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request;
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+    request.setUrl(url);
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), resource.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), resource.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromFtp_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("referenceName");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+
+    QTest::newRow("rfc3252.txt") << SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt" << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt";
+    QTest::newRow("bigfile") << SRCDIR "/bigfile" << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/bigfile";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromFtp()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, referenceName);
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+
+    QFile reference(referenceName);
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), reference.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromHttp_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("referenceName");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+
+    QTest::newRow("success-internal") << SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt" << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt";
+    QTest::newRow("success-external") << SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt" << "http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3252.txt";
+    QTest::newRow("bigfile-internal") << SRCDIR "/bigfile" << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/bigfile";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getFromHttp()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, referenceName);
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+
+    QFile reference(referenceName);
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), reference.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getErrors_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<int>("error");
+    QTest::addColumn<int>("httpStatusCode");
+    QTest::addColumn<bool>("dataIsEmpty");
+
+    // file: errors
+    QTest::newRow("file-host") << "file://this-host-doesnt-exist.troll.no/foo.txt"
+#if !defined Q_OS_WIN
+                               << int(QNetworkReply::ProtocolInvalidOperationError) << 0 << true;
+#else
+                               << int(QNetworkReply::ContentNotFoundError) << 0 << true;
+#endif
+    QTest::newRow("file-no-path") << "file://localhost"
+                                  << int(QNetworkReply::ContentOperationNotPermittedError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("file-is-dir") << QUrl::fromLocalFile(QDir::currentPath()).toString()
+                                 << int(QNetworkReply::ContentOperationNotPermittedError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("file-exist") << QUrl::fromLocalFile(QDir::currentPath() + "/this-file-doesnt-exist.txt").toString()
+                                << int(QNetworkReply::ContentNotFoundError) << 0 << true;
+#if !defined Q_OS_WIN
+    QTest::newRow("file-is-wronly") << QUrl::fromLocalFile(wronlyFileName).toString()
+                                    << int(QNetworkReply::ContentAccessDenied) << 0 << true;
+#endif
+    if (QFile::exists("/etc/shadow"))
+        QTest::newRow("file-permissions") << "file:/etc/shadow"
+                                          << int(QNetworkReply::ContentAccessDenied) << 0 << true;
+
+    // ftp: errors
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-host") << "ftp://this-host-doesnt-exist.troll.no/foo.txt"
+                              << int(QNetworkReply::HostNotFoundError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-no-path") << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName()
+                                 << int(QNetworkReply::ContentOperationNotPermittedError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-is-dir") << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest"
+                                << int(QNetworkReply::ContentOperationNotPermittedError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-dir-not-readable") << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/pub/dir-not-readable/foo.txt"
+                                          << int(QNetworkReply::ContentAccessDenied) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-file-not-readable") << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/pub/file-not-readable.txt"
+                                           << int(QNetworkReply::ContentAccessDenied) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-exist") << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/pub/this-file-doesnt-exist.txt"
+                               << int(QNetworkReply::ContentNotFoundError) << 0 << true;
+
+    // http: errors
+    QTest::newRow("http-host") << "http://this-host-will-never-exist.troll.no/"
+                               << int(QNetworkReply::HostNotFoundError) << 0 << true;
+    QTest::newRow("http-exist") << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/this-file-doesnt-exist.txt"
+                                << int(QNetworkReply::ContentNotFoundError) << 404 << false;
+    QTest::newRow("http-authentication") << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfcs-auth"
+                                         << int(QNetworkReply::AuthenticationRequiredError) << 401 << false;
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::getErrors()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    reply->setParent(this);     // we have expect-fails
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    // now run the request:
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()),
+            &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    //qDebug() << reply->errorString();
+
+    QFETCH(int, error);
+    QEXPECT_FAIL("ftp-is-dir", "QFtp cannot provide enough detail", Abort);
+    // the line below is not necessary
+    QEXPECT_FAIL("ftp-dir-not-readable", "QFtp cannot provide enough detail", Abort);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NetworkError(error));
+
+    QTEST(reply->readAll().isEmpty(), "dataIsEmpty");
+
+    QFETCH(int, httpStatusCode);
+    if (httpStatusCode != 0) {
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), httpStatusCode);
+    }
+}
+
+static inline QByteArray md5sum(const QByteArray &data)
+{
+    return QCryptographicHash::hash(data, QCryptographicHash::Md5);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToFile_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("data");
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("md5sum");
+
+    QByteArray data;
+    data = "";
+    QTest::newRow("empty") << data << md5sum(data);
+
+    data = "This is a normal message.";
+    QTest::newRow("generic") << data << md5sum(data);
+
+    data = "This is a message to show that Qt rocks!\r\n\n";
+    QTest::newRow("small") << data << md5sum(data);
+
+    data = QByteArray("abcd\0\1\2\abcd",12);
+    QTest::newRow("with-nul") << data << md5sum(data);
+
+    data = QByteArray(4097, '\4');
+    QTest::newRow("4k+1") << data << md5sum(data);
+
+    data = QByteArray(128*1024+1, '\177');
+    QTest::newRow("128k+1") << data << md5sum(data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToFile()
+{
+    QFile file(testFileName);
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::PutOperation, request, reply, data));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(file.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+    QByteArray contents = file.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(contents, data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToFtp_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToFtp()
+{
+    QUrl url("ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    url.setPath(QString("/qtest/upload/qnetworkaccess-putToFtp-%1-%2")
+                .arg(QTest::currentDataTag())
+                .arg(uniqueExtension));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::PutOperation, request, reply, data));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    // download the file again from FTP to make sure it was uploaded
+    // correctly
+    QFtp ftp;
+    ftp.connectToHost(url.host());
+    ftp.login();
+    ftp.get(url.path());
+
+    QObject::connect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QObject::disconnect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+
+    QByteArray uploaded = ftp.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(uploaded.size(), data.size());
+    QCOMPARE(uploaded, data);
+
+    ftp.close();
+    QObject::connect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QObject::disconnect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToHttp_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::putToHttp()
+{
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    url.setPath(QString("/dav/qnetworkaccess-putToHttp-%1-%2")
+                .arg(QTest::currentDataTag())
+                .arg(uniqueExtension));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::PutOperation, request, reply, data));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 201); // 201 Created
+
+    // download the file again from HTTP to make sure it was uploaded
+    // correctly. HTTP/0.9 is enough
+    QTcpSocket socket;
+    socket.connectToHost(QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 80);
+    socket.write("GET " + url.toEncoded(QUrl::RemoveScheme | QUrl::RemoveAuthority) + "\r\n");
+    if (!socket.waitForDisconnected(10000))
+        QFAIL("Network timeout");
+
+    QByteArray uploadedData = socket.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(uploadedData, data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::postToHttp_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::postToHttp()
+{
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/cgi-bin/md5sum.cgi");
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::PostOperation, request, reply, data));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200); // 200 Ok
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, md5sum);
+    QByteArray uploadedData = reply->readAll().trimmed();
+    QCOMPARE(uploadedData, md5sum.toHex());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromData_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("urlStr");
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("data");
+
+    QTest::newRow("data-empty") << "data:," << QByteArray();
+    QTest::newRow("data-literal") << "data:,foo" << QByteArray("foo");
+    QTest::newRow("data-pct") << "data:,%3Cbody%20contentEditable%3Dtrue%3E%0D%0A"
+                           << QByteArray("<body contentEditable=true>\r\n");
+    QTest::newRow("data-base64") << "data:;base64,UXQgaXMgZ3JlYXQh" << QByteArray("Qt is great!");
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromData()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, urlStr);
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromEncoded(urlStr.toLatin1());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()),
+            &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toInt(), data.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data.size(), data.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFileSpecial_data()
+{
+    getFromFileSpecial_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFileSpecial()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+
+    QFile resource(fileName);
+    QVERIFY(resource.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request;
+    request.setUrl(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), resource.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), resource.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, resource.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFile_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFile()
+{
+    QTemporaryFile file(QDir::currentPath() + "/temp-XXXXXX");
+    file.setAutoRemove(true);
+    QVERIFY(file.open());
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    QVERIFY(file.write(data) == data.size());
+    file.flush();
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName()));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), file.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), file.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFtp_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("fileName");
+    QTest::addColumn<qint64>("expectedSize");
+
+    QTest::newRow("bigfile") << "bigfile" << Q_INT64_C(519240);
+
+    QFile file(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QTest::newRow("rfc3252.txt") << "rfc3252.txt" << file.size();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFtp()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFile reference(fileName);
+    reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly); // will fail for bigfile
+
+    QNetworkRequest request("ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/" + fileName);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QFETCH(qint64, expectedSize);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), expectedSize);
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), expectedSize);
+
+    if (reference.isOpen())
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromFtpWithReuse()
+{
+    QString fileName = SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt";
+    QFile reference(fileName);
+    reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+
+    // two concurrent (actually, consecutive) gets:
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply1 = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader1(reply1);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply2 = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader2(reply2);
+    QSignalSpy spy(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()));
+
+    connect(reply2, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    if (spy.count() == 0) {
+        connect(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    }
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader1.data.size()), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader2.data.size()), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+
+    QByteArray referenceData = reference.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(reader1.data, referenceData);
+    QCOMPARE(reader2.data, referenceData);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttp()
+{
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), reference.size());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpWithReuseParallel()
+{
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply1 = manager.get(request);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply2 = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader1(reply1);
+    DataReader reader2(reply2);
+    QSignalSpy spy(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()));
+
+    connect(reply2, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    if (spy.count() == 0) {
+        connect(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    }
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader1.data.size()), reference.size());
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(reader2.data.size()), reference.size());
+
+    QByteArray referenceData = reference.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(reader1.data, referenceData);
+    QCOMPARE(reader2.data, referenceData);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpWithReuseSequential()
+{
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    {
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+        QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+        QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), reference.size());
+
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+    }
+
+    reference.seek(0);
+    // rinse and repeat:
+    {
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+        QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), reference.size());
+        QCOMPARE(qint64(reader.data.size()), reference.size());
+
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpWithAuth()
+{
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkReply *>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QAuthenticator *>();
+
+    // This test sends three requests
+    // The first two in parallel
+    // The third after the first two finished
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfcs-auth/rfc3252.txt"));
+    {
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply1 = manager.get(request);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply2 = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader1(reply1);
+        DataReader reader2(reply2);
+        QSignalSpy finishedspy(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()));
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        connect(reply2, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        if (finishedspy.count() == 0) {
+            connect(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+            QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+            QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        }
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply1->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QCOMPARE(reply2->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QByteArray referenceData = reference.readAll();
+        QCOMPARE(reader1.data, referenceData);
+        QCOMPARE(reader2.data, referenceData);
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 1);
+    }
+
+    reference.seek(0);
+    // rinse and repeat:
+    {
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(authenticationRequired(QNetworkReply*,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpWithProxyAuth()
+{
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkProxy>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QAuthenticator *>();
+
+    // This test sends three requests
+    // The first two in parallel
+    // The third after the first two finished
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkProxy proxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    {
+        manager.setProxy(proxy);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply1 = manager.get(request);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply2 = manager.get(request);
+        manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+        DataReader reader1(reply1);
+        DataReader reader2(reply2);
+        QSignalSpy finishedspy(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()));
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        connect(reply2, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        if (finishedspy.count() == 0) {
+            connect(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+            QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+            QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        }
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply1->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QCOMPARE(reply2->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QByteArray referenceData = reference.readAll();
+        QCOMPARE(reader1.data, referenceData);
+        QCOMPARE(reader2.data, referenceData);
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 1);
+    }
+
+    reference.seek(0);
+    // rinse and repeat:
+    {
+        manager.setProxy(proxy);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+        manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpWithSocksProxy()
+{
+    // HTTP caching proxies are tested by the above function
+    // test SOCKSv5 proxies too
+
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkProxy>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QAuthenticator *>();
+
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkProxy proxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1080);
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    {
+        manager.setProxy(proxy);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+        manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+    }
+
+    // set an invalid proxy just to make sure that we can't load
+    proxy = QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1079);
+    {
+        manager.setProxy(proxy);
+        QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+        DataReader reader(reply);
+        manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+        QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                           this, SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+
+        QVERIFY(!reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).isValid());
+        QVERIFY(reader.data.isEmpty());
+
+        QVERIFY(int(reply->error()) > 0);
+        QEXPECT_FAIL("", "QTcpSocket doesn't return enough information yet", Continue);
+        QCOMPARE(int(reply->error()), int(QNetworkReply::ProxyConnectionRefusedError));
+
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+    }
+}
+
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpsWithSslErrors()
+{
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkReply*>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QList<QSslError> >();
+
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    QSignalSpy sslspy(&manager, SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+    connect(&manager, SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)),
+            SLOT(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(metaDataChanged()), SLOT(storeSslConfiguration()));
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)),
+                       this, SLOT(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+    QCOMPARE(sslspy.count(), 1);
+
+    QVERIFY(!storedSslConfiguration.isNull());
+    QVERIFY(!reply->sslConfiguration().isNull());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpsWithIgnoreSslErrors()
+{
+    // same as above, except that we call ignoreSslErrors and don't connect
+    // to the sslErrors() signal (which is *still* emitted)
+
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkReply*>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QList<QSslError> >();
+
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"));
+
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    reply->ignoreSslErrors();
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    QSignalSpy sslspy(&manager, SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(metaDataChanged()), SLOT(storeSslConfiguration()));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+    QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+    QCOMPARE(sslspy.count(), 1);
+
+    QVERIFY(!storedSslConfiguration.isNull());
+    QVERIFY(!reply->sslConfiguration().isNull());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetFromHttpsWithSslHandshakeError()
+{
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkReply*>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QList<QSslError> >();
+
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl("https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + ":80"));
+
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    reply->ignoreSslErrors();
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    QSignalSpy sslspy(&manager, SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(metaDataChanged()), SLOT(storeSslConfiguration()));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::SslHandshakeFailedError);
+    QCOMPARE(sslspy.count(), 0);
+}
+#endif
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetWithManyProxies_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QList<QNetworkProxy> >("proxyList");
+    QTest::addColumn<QNetworkProxy>("proxyUsed");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<QNetworkReply::NetworkError>("expectedError");
+
+    QList<QNetworkProxy> proxyList;
+
+    // All of the other functions test DefaultProxy
+    // So let's test something else
+
+    // Simple tests that work:
+
+    // HTTP request with HTTP caching proxy
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with HTTP transparent proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-http2")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with SOCKS transparent proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1081);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-socks")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // FTP request with FTP caching proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121);
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-on-ftp")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // The following test doesn't work because QFtp is too limited
+    // It can only talk to its own kind of proxies
+
+    // FTP request with SOCKSv5 transparent proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1081);
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-on-socks")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    // HTTPS with HTTP transparent proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTPS request with SOCKS transparent proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1081);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-socks")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+#endif
+
+    // Tests that fail:
+
+    // HTTP request with FTP caching proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-ftp")
+        << proxyList << QNetworkProxy()
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::ProxyNotFoundError;
+
+    // FTP request with HTTP caching proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-on-http")
+        << proxyList << QNetworkProxy()
+        << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::ProxyNotFoundError;
+
+    // FTP request with HTTP caching proxies
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3130);
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-on-multiple-http")
+        << proxyList << QNetworkProxy()
+        << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::ProxyNotFoundError;
+
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    // HTTPS with HTTP caching proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-httptransparent")
+        << proxyList << QNetworkProxy()
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::ProxyNotFoundError;
+
+    // HTTPS with FTP caching proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-ftp")
+        << proxyList << QNetworkProxy()
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::ProxyNotFoundError;
+#endif
+
+    // Complex requests:
+
+    // HTTP request with more than one HTTP proxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3130);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-multiple-http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with HTTP + SOCKS
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1081);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-http+socks")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with FTP + HTTP + SOCKS
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::Socks5Proxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 1081);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-ftp+http+socks")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(1) // second proxy should be used
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with NoProxy + HTTP
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::NoProxy)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-noproxy+http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(0)
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTP request with FTP + NoProxy
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::NoProxy);
+    QTest::newRow("http-on-ftp+noproxy")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(1) // second proxy should be used
+        << "http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // FTP request with HTTP Caching + FTP
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121);
+    QTest::newRow("ftp-on-http+ftp")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(1) // second proxy should be used
+        << "ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    // HTTPS request with HTTP Caching + HTTP transparent
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-httpcaching+http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(1) // second proxy should be used
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+
+    // HTTPS request with FTP + HTTP C + HTTP T
+    proxyList.clear();
+    proxyList << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::FtpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 2121)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpCachingProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129)
+              << QNetworkProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, QtNetworkSettings::serverName(), 3129);
+    QTest::newRow("https-on-ftp+httpcaching+http")
+        << proxyList << proxyList.at(2) // skip the first two
+        << "https://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/rfc3252.txt"
+        << QNetworkReply::NoError;
+#endif
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioGetWithManyProxies()
+{
+    // Test proxy factories
+
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkProxy>(); // for QSignalSpy
+    qRegisterMetaType<QAuthenticator *>();
+
+    QFile reference(SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt");
+    QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    // set the proxy factory:
+    QFETCH(QList<QNetworkProxy>, proxyList);
+    MyProxyFactory *proxyFactory = new MyProxyFactory;
+    proxyFactory->toReturn = proxyList;
+    manager.setProxyFactory(proxyFactory);
+
+    QFETCH(QString, url);
+    QUrl theUrl(url);
+    QNetworkRequest request(theUrl);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply);
+
+    QSignalSpy authspy(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+    connect(&manager, SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+            SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    connect(&manager, SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)),
+            SLOT(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+#endif
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)),
+                       this, SLOT(proxyAuthenticationRequired(QNetworkProxy,QAuthenticator*)));
+#ifndef QT_NO_OPENSSL
+    manager.disconnect(SIGNAL(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)),
+                       this, SLOT(sslErrors(QNetworkReply*,QList<QSslError>)));
+#endif
+
+    QFETCH(QNetworkReply::NetworkError, expectedError);
+    QEXPECT_FAIL("ftp-on-socks", "QFtp is too limited and won't accept non-FTP proxies", Abort);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), expectedError);
+
+    // Verify that the factory was called properly
+    QCOMPARE(proxyFactory->callCount, 1);
+    QCOMPARE(proxyFactory->lastQuery, QNetworkProxyQuery(theUrl));
+
+    if (expectedError == QNetworkReply::NoError) {
+        // request succeeded
+        QCOMPARE(reader.data, reference.readAll());
+
+        // now verify that the proxies worked:
+        QFETCH(QNetworkProxy, proxyUsed);
+        if (proxyUsed.type() == QNetworkProxy::NoProxy) {
+            QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+        } else {
+            if (QByteArray(QTest::currentDataTag()).startsWith("ftp-"))
+                return;         // No authentication with current FTP or with FTP proxies
+            QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 1);
+            QCOMPARE(qvariant_cast<QNetworkProxy>(authspy.at(0).at(0)), proxyUsed);
+        }
+    } else {
+        // request failed
+        QCOMPARE(authspy.count(), 0);
+    }
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromFile_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("fileName");
+
+    QTest::newRow("empty") << SRCDIR "/empty";
+    QTest::newRow("real-file") << SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt";
+    QTest::newRow("resource") << ":/resource";
+    QTest::newRow("search-path") << "srcdir:/rfc3252.txt";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromFile()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFile sourceFile(fileName);
+    QFile targetFile(testFileName);
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(targetFile.fileName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(request, &sourceFile);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.atEnd());
+    sourceFile.seek(0);         // reset it to the beginning
+
+    QVERIFY(targetFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(targetFile.size(), sourceFile.size());
+    QCOMPARE(targetFile.readAll(), sourceFile.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromSocket_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromSocket()
+{
+    QFile file(testFileName);
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    SocketPair socketpair;
+    socketpair.create();
+    QVERIFY(socketpair.endPoints[0] && socketpair.endPoints[1]);
+
+    socketpair.endPoints[0]->write(data);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(QNetworkRequest(url), socketpair.endPoints[1]);
+    socketpair.endPoints[0]->close();
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(file.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+    QByteArray contents = file.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(contents, data);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromLocalSocket_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromLocalSocket()
+{
+#if defined(Q_OS_WINCE) && QT_VERSION < 0x040500
+    QSKIP("No local sockets on Windows CE for Qt 4.4", SkipAll);
+#else
+    QString socketname = "networkreplytest";
+    QLocalServer server;
+    if (!server.listen(socketname)) {
+        if (QFile::exists(server.fullServerName()))
+            QFile::remove(server.fullServerName());
+        QVERIFY(server.listen(socketname));
+    }
+    QLocalSocket active;
+    active.connectToServer(socketname);
+    QVERIFY2(server.waitForNewConnection(10), server.errorString().toLatin1().constData());
+    QVERIFY2(active.waitForConnected(10), active.errorString().toLatin1().constData());
+    QVERIFY2(server.hasPendingConnections(), server.errorString().toLatin1().constData());
+    QLocalSocket *passive = server.nextPendingConnection();
+
+    QFile file(testFileName);
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    active.write(data);
+    active.close();
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(QNetworkRequest(url), passive);
+    passive->setParent(reply);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(file.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+    QByteArray contents = file.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(contents, data);
+#endif
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromProcess_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFileFromProcess()
+{
+#if defined(Q_OS_WINCE)
+    QSKIP("Currently no stdin/out supported for Windows CE", SkipAll);
+#endif
+#ifdef Q_OS_WIN
+    if (qstrcmp(QTest::currentDataTag(), "small") == 0)
+        QSKIP("When passing a CR-LF-LF sequence through Windows stdio, it gets converted, "
+              "so this test fails. Disabled on Windows", SkipSingle);
+#endif
+#if defined(QT_NO_PROCESS)
+    QSKIP("Qt was compiled with QT_NO_PROCESS", SkipAll);
+#else
+
+    QFile file(testFileName);
+
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(file.fileName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    QProcess process;
+    process.start("echo/echo all");
+    process.write(data);
+    process.closeWriteChannel();
+
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(QNetworkRequest(url), &process);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(file.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(file.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+    QByteArray contents = file.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(contents, data);
+#endif
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFtpFromFile_data()
+{
+    ioPutToFileFromFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToFtpFromFile()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFile sourceFile(fileName);
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QUrl url("ftp://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    url.setPath(QString("/qtest/upload/qnetworkaccess-ioPutToFtpFromFile-%1-%2")
+                .arg(QTest::currentDataTag())
+                .arg(uniqueExtension));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(request, &sourceFile);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(reply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.atEnd());
+    sourceFile.seek(0);         // reset it to the beginning
+
+    // download the file again from FTP to make sure it was uploaded
+    // correctly
+    QFtp ftp;
+    ftp.connectToHost(url.host());
+    ftp.login();
+    ftp.get(url.path());
+
+    QObject::connect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(3);
+    QObject::disconnect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+
+    QByteArray uploaded = ftp.readAll();
+    QCOMPARE(qint64(uploaded.size()), sourceFile.size());
+    QCOMPARE(uploaded, sourceFile.readAll());
+
+    ftp.close();
+    QObject::connect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QObject::disconnect(&ftp, SIGNAL(done(bool)), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToHttpFromFile_data()
+{
+    ioPutToFileFromFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPutToHttpFromFile()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFile sourceFile(fileName);
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    url.setPath(QString("/dav/qnetworkaccess-ioPutToHttpFromFile-%1-%2")
+                .arg(QTest::currentDataTag())
+                .arg(uniqueExtension));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(request, &sourceFile);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    // verify that the HTTP status code is 201 Created
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 201);
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.atEnd());
+    sourceFile.seek(0);         // reset it to the beginning
+
+    // download the file again from HTTP to make sure it was uploaded
+    // correctly
+    reply = manager.get(request);
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200); // 200 Ok
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll(), sourceFile.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPostToHttpFromFile_data()
+{
+    ioPutToFileFromFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::ioPostToHttpFromFile()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, fileName);
+    QFile sourceFile(fileName);
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/cgi-bin/md5sum.cgi");
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.post(request, &sourceFile);
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    // verify that the HTTP status code is 200 Ok
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.atEnd());
+    sourceFile.seek(0);         // reset it to the beginning
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->readAll().trimmed(), md5sum(sourceFile.readAll()).toHex());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::rateControl_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<int>("rate");
+
+    QTest::newRow("15") << 15;
+    QTest::newRow("40") << 40;
+    QTest::newRow("73") << 73;
+    QTest::newRow("80") << 80;
+    QTest::newRow("125") << 125;
+    QTest::newRow("250") << 250;
+    QTest::newRow("1024") << 1024;
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::rateControl()
+{
+    QSKIP("Test disabled -- only for manual purposes", SkipAll);
+    // this function tests that we aren't reading from the network
+    // faster than the data is being consumed.
+    QFETCH(int, rate);
+
+    // ask for 20 seconds worth of data
+    FastSender sender(20 * rate * 1024);
+
+    QNetworkRequest request("debugpipe://localhost:" + QString::number(sender.serverPort()));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    reply->setReadBufferSize(32768);
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+
+    RateControlledReader reader(reply, rate);
+
+    // this test is designed to run for 25 seconds at most
+    QTime loopTime;
+    loopTime.start();
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(40);
+    int elapsedTime = loopTime.elapsed();
+
+    qDebug() << "send rate:" << sender.transferRate;
+    qDebug() << "receive rate:" << reader.totalBytesRead * 1000 / elapsedTime
+             << "(it received" << reader.totalBytesRead << "bytes in" << elapsedTime << "ms)";
+
+    sender.wait();
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), request.url());
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QVERIFY(sender.transferRate != -1);
+    int minRate = rate * 1024 * 9 / 10;
+    int maxRate = rate * 1024 * 11 / 10;
+    QVERIFY(sender.transferRate >= minRate);
+    QVERIFY(sender.transferRate <= maxRate);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::downloadPerformance()
+{
+    // unlike the above function, this one tries to send as fast as possible
+    // and measures how fast it was.
+
+    TimedSender sender(5000);
+    QNetworkRequest request("debugpipe://127.0.0.1:" + QString::number(sender.serverPort()) + "/?bare=1");
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    DataReader reader(reply, false);
+
+    QTime loopTime;
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    loopTime.start();
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(40);
+    int elapsedTime = loopTime.elapsed();
+    sender.wait();
+
+    qint64 receivedBytes = reader.totalBytes;
+    qDebug() << "receive rate:" << (receivedBytes * 1000 / elapsedTime / 1024) << "kB/s and"
+             << elapsedTime << "ms";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::uploadPerformance()
+{
+    ThreadedDataReader reader;
+    DataGenerator generator;
+    QNetworkRequest request("debugpipe://127.0.0.1:" + QString::number(reader.serverPort()) + "/?bare=1");
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(request, &generator);
+
+    connect(&reader, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTimer::singleShot(5000, &generator, SLOT(stop()));
+    generator.start();
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(40);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::performanceControlRate()
+{
+    // this is a control comparison for the other two above
+    // it does the same thing, but instead bypasses the QNetworkAccess system
+    qDebug() << "The following are the maximum transfer rates that we can get in this system"
+        " (bypassing QNetworkAccess)";
+
+    TimedSender sender(5000);
+    QTcpSocket sink;
+    sink.connectToHost("127.0.0.1", sender.serverPort());
+    DataReader reader(&sink, false);
+
+    QTime loopTime;
+    connect(&sink, SIGNAL(disconnected()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    loopTime.start();
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(40);
+    int elapsedTime = loopTime.elapsed();
+    sender.wait();
+
+    qint64 receivedBytes = reader.totalBytes;
+    qDebug() << "receive rate:" << (receivedBytes * 1000 / elapsedTime / 1024) << "kB/s and"
+             << elapsedTime << "ms";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::downloadProgress_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<int>("loopCount");
+
+    QTest::newRow("empty") << 0;
+    QTest::newRow("small") << 4;
+    QTest::newRow("big") << 4096;
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::downloadProgress()
+{
+    QTcpServer server;
+    QVERIFY(server.listen());
+
+    QNetworkRequest request("debugpipe://127.0.0.1:" + QString::number(server.serverPort()) + "/?bare=1");
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+    QSignalSpy spy(reply, SIGNAL(downloadProgress(qint64,qint64)));
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(downloadProgress(qint64,qint64)),
+            &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QVERIFY(spy.isValid());
+
+    QCoreApplication::instance()->processEvents();
+    server.waitForNewConnection(0); // ignore result, since processEvents may have got it
+    QVERIFY(server.hasPendingConnections());
+    QCOMPARE(spy.count(), 0);
+
+    QByteArray data(128, 'a');
+    QTcpSocket *sender = server.nextPendingConnection();
+
+    QFETCH(int, loopCount);
+    for (int i = 1; i <= loopCount; ++i) {
+        sender->write(data);
+        QVERIFY2(sender->waitForBytesWritten(2000), "Network timeout");
+
+        spy.clear();
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(2);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+        QVERIFY(spy.count() > 0);
+
+        QList<QVariant> args = spy.last();
+        QCOMPARE(args.at(0).toInt(), i*data.size());
+        QCOMPARE(args.at(1).toInt(), -1);
+    }
+
+    // close the connection:
+    delete sender;
+
+    spy.clear();
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(2);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    QVERIFY(spy.count() > 0);
+
+    QList<QVariant> args = spy.last();
+    QCOMPARE(args.at(0).toInt(), loopCount * data.size());
+    QCOMPARE(args.at(1).toInt(), loopCount * data.size());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::uploadProgress_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::uploadProgress()
+{
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    QTcpServer server;
+    QVERIFY(server.listen());
+
+    QNetworkRequest request("debugpipe://127.0.0.1:" + QString::number(server.serverPort()) + "/?bare=1");
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.put(request, data);
+    QSignalSpy spy(reply, SIGNAL(uploadProgress(qint64,qint64)));
+    QSignalSpy finished(reply, SIGNAL(finished()));
+    QVERIFY(spy.isValid());
+    QVERIFY(finished.isValid());
+
+    QCoreApplication::instance()->processEvents();
+    server.waitForNewConnection(0); // ignore result, since processEvents may have got it
+    QVERIFY(server.hasPendingConnections());
+
+    QTcpSocket *receiver = server.nextPendingConnection();
+    if (finished.count() == 0) {
+        // it's not finished yet, so wait for it to be
+        connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(2);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    }
+    delete receiver;
+
+    QVERIFY(finished.count() > 0);
+    QVERIFY(spy.count() > 0);
+
+    QList<QVariant> args = spy.last();
+    QCOMPARE(args.at(0).toInt(), data.size());
+    QCOMPARE(args.at(1).toInt(), data.size());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::chaining_data()
+{
+    putToFile_data();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::chaining()
+{
+    QTemporaryFile sourceFile(QDir::currentPath() + "/temp-XXXXXX");
+    sourceFile.setAutoRemove(true);
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.open());
+
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, data);
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.write(data) == data.size());
+    sourceFile.flush();
+    QCOMPARE(sourceFile.size(), qint64(data.size()));
+
+    QNetworkRequest request(QUrl::fromLocalFile(sourceFile.fileName()));
+    QNetworkReplyPtr getReply = manager.get(request);
+
+    QFile targetFile(testFileName);
+    QUrl url = QUrl::fromLocalFile(targetFile.fileName());
+    request.setUrl(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr putReply = manager.put(request, getReply);
+
+    connect(putReply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QCOMPARE(getReply->url(), QUrl::fromLocalFile(sourceFile.fileName()));
+    QCOMPARE(getReply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(getReply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), sourceFile.size());
+
+    QCOMPARE(putReply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(putReply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(putReply->header(QNetworkRequest::ContentLengthHeader).toLongLong(), Q_INT64_C(0));
+    QVERIFY(putReply->readAll().isEmpty());
+
+    QVERIFY(sourceFile.atEnd());
+    sourceFile.seek(0);         // reset it to the beginning
+
+    QVERIFY(targetFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly));
+    QCOMPARE(targetFile.size(), sourceFile.size());
+    QCOMPARE(targetFile.readAll(), sourceFile.readAll());
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::receiveCookiesFromHttp_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("cookieString");
+    QTest::addColumn<QList<QNetworkCookie> >("expectedCookiesFromHttp");
+    QTest::addColumn<QList<QNetworkCookie> >("expectedCookiesInJar");
+
+    QTest::newRow("empty") << "" << QList<QNetworkCookie>() << QList<QNetworkCookie>();
+
+    QList<QNetworkCookie> header, jar;
+    QNetworkCookie cookie("a", "b");
+    header << cookie;
+    cookie.setDomain(QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    cookie.setPath("/qtest/cgi-bin/");
+    jar << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("simple-cookie") << "a=b" << header << jar;
+
+    header << QNetworkCookie("c", "d");
+    cookie.setName("c");
+    cookie.setValue("d");
+    jar << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("two-cookies") << "a=b, c=d" << header << jar;
+    QTest::newRow("two-cookies-2") << "a=b\nc=d" << header << jar;
+
+    header.clear();
+    jar.clear();
+    cookie = QNetworkCookie("a", "b");
+    cookie.setPath("/not/part-of-path");
+    header << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("invalid-cookie-path") << "a=b; path=/not/part-of-path" << header << jar;
+
+    cookie = QNetworkCookie("a", "b");
+    cookie.setDomain(".example.com");
+    header.clear();
+    header << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("invalid-cookie-domain") << "a=b; domain=.example.com" << header << jar;
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::receiveCookiesFromHttp()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, cookieString);
+
+    QByteArray data = cookieString.toLatin1() + '\n';
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/cgi-bin/set-cookie.cgi");
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::PostOperation, request, reply, data));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200); // 200 Ok
+
+    QList<QNetworkCookie> setCookies =
+        qvariant_cast<QList<QNetworkCookie> >(reply->header(QNetworkRequest::SetCookieHeader));
+    QTEST(setCookies, "expectedCookiesFromHttp");
+    QTEST(cookieJar->allCookies(), "expectedCookiesInJar");
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::sendCookies_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QList<QNetworkCookie> >("cookiesToSet");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("expectedCookieString");
+
+    QList<QNetworkCookie> list;
+    QTest::newRow("empty") << list << "";
+
+    QNetworkCookie cookie("a", "b");
+    cookie.setPath("/");
+    cookie.setDomain("example.com");
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("no-match-domain") << list << "";
+
+    cookie.setDomain(QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    cookie.setPath("/something/else");
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("no-match-path") << list << "";
+
+    cookie.setPath("/");
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("simple-cookie") << list << "a=b";
+
+    cookie.setPath("/qtest");
+    cookie.setValue("longer");
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("two-cookies") << list << "a=longer; a=b";
+
+    list.clear();
+    cookie = QNetworkCookie("a", "b");
+    cookie.setPath("/");
+    cookie.setDomain("." + QtNetworkSettings::serverDomainName());
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("domain-match") << list << "a=b";
+
+    // but it shouldn't match this:
+    cookie.setDomain(QtNetworkSettings::serverDomainName());
+    list << cookie;
+    QTest::newRow("domain-match-2") << list << "a=b";
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::sendCookies()
+{
+    QFETCH(QString, expectedCookieString);
+    QFETCH(QList<QNetworkCookie>, cookiesToSet);
+    cookieJar->setAllCookies(cookiesToSet);
+
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName() + "/qtest/cgi-bin/get-cookie.cgi");
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply;
+    RUN_REQUEST(runSimpleRequest(QNetworkAccessManager::GetOperation, request, reply));
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->url(), url);
+    QCOMPARE(reply->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200); // 200 Ok
+
+    QCOMPARE(QString::fromLatin1(reply->readAll()).trimmed(), expectedCookieString);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::nestedEventLoops_slot()
+{
+    QEventLoop subloop;
+
+    // 16 seconds: fluke times out in 15 seconds, which triggers a QTcpSocket error
+    QTimer::singleShot(16000, &subloop, SLOT(quit()));
+    subloop.exec();
+
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().exitLoop();
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::nestedEventLoops()
+{
+    // Slightly fragile test, it may not be testing anything
+    // This is certifying that we're not running into the same issue
+    // that QHttp had (task 200432): the QTcpSocket connection is
+    // closed by the remote end because of the kept-alive HTTP
+    // connection timed out.
+    //
+    // The exact time required for this to happen is not exactly
+    // defined. Our server (Apache httpd) times out after 15
+    // seconds. (see above)
+
+    qDebug("Takes 16 seconds to run, please wait");
+    qRegisterMetaType<QNetworkReply::NetworkError>();
+
+    QUrl url("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName());
+    QNetworkRequest request(url);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(request);
+
+    QSignalSpy finishedspy(reply, SIGNAL(finished()));
+    QSignalSpy errorspy(reply, SIGNAL(error(QNetworkReply::NetworkError)));
+
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), SLOT(nestedEventLoops_slot()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(20);
+    QVERIFY2(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout(), "Network timeout");
+
+    QCOMPARE(finishedspy.count(), 1);
+    QCOMPARE(errorspy.count(), 0);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::httpProxyCommands_data()
+{
+    QTest::addColumn<QUrl>("url");
+    QTest::addColumn<QByteArray>("responseToSend");
+    QTest::addColumn<QString>("expectedCommand");
+
+    QTest::newRow("http")
+        << QUrl("http://0.0.0.0:4443/http-request")
+        << QByteArray("HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\nProxy-Connection: close\r\nContent-Length: 1\r\n\r\n1")
+        << "GET http://0.0.0.0:4443/http-request HTTP/1.";
+#ifndef QT_NO_SSL
+    QTest::newRow("https")
+        << QUrl("https://0.0.0.0:4443/https-request")
+        << QByteArray("HTTP/1.0 200 Connection Established\r\n\r\n")
+        << "CONNECT 0.0.0.0:4443 HTTP/1.";
+#endif
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::httpProxyCommands()
+{
+    QFETCH(QUrl, url);
+    QFETCH(QByteArray, responseToSend);
+    QFETCH(QString, expectedCommand);
+
+    MiniHttpServer proxyServer(responseToSend);
+    QNetworkProxy proxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, "127.0.0.1", proxyServer.serverPort());
+
+    manager.setProxy(proxy);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply = manager.get(QNetworkRequest(url));
+    manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+
+    // wait for the finished signal
+    connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(1);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    //qDebug() << reply->error() << reply->errorString();
+
+    // we don't really care if the request succeeded
+    // especially since it won't succeed in the HTTPS case
+    // so just check that the command was correct
+
+    QString receivedHeader = proxyServer.receivedData.left(expectedCommand.length());
+    QCOMPARE(receivedHeader, expectedCommand);
+}
+
+void tst_QNetworkReply::proxyChange()
+{
+    MiniHttpServer proxyServer(
+        "HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\nProxy-Connection: keep-alive\r\n"
+        "Content-Length: 1\r\n\r\n1");
+    QNetworkProxy dummyProxy(QNetworkProxy::HttpProxy, "127.0.0.1", proxyServer.serverPort());
+    QNetworkRequest req(QUrl("http://" + QtNetworkSettings::serverName()));
+    proxyServer.doClose = false;
+
+    manager.setProxy(dummyProxy);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply1 = manager.get(req);
+    QSignalSpy finishedspy(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()));
+
+    manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy());
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply2 = manager.get(req);
+
+    connect(reply2, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    if (finishedspy.count() == 0) {
+        // wait for the second reply as well
+        connect(reply1, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+        QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(1);
+        QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+    }
+
+    // verify that the replies succeeded
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply1->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+    QVERIFY(reply1->size() == 1);
+
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->error(), QNetworkReply::NoError);
+    QCOMPARE(reply2->attribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpStatusCodeAttribute).toInt(), 200);
+    QVERIFY(reply2->size() > 1);
+
+    // now try again and get an error
+    // this verifies that we reuse the already-open connection
+
+    proxyServer.doClose = true;
+    proxyServer.dataToTransmit =
+        "HTTP/1.0 403 Forbidden\r\nProxy-Connection: close\r\n"
+        "Content-Length: 1\r\n\r\n1";
+
+    manager.setProxy(dummyProxy);
+    QNetworkReplyPtr reply3 = manager.get(req);
+    connect(reply3, SIGNAL(finished()), &QTestEventLoop::instance(), SLOT(exitLoop()));
+    QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(1);
+    QVERIFY(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout());
+
+    QVERIFY(int(reply3->error()) > 0);
+}
+
+QTEST_MAIN(tst_QNetworkReply)
+#include "tst_qnetworkreply.moc"