diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | tests/auto/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro | 15 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | tests/auto/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt | 899 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | tests/auto/networkselftest/tst_networkselftest.cpp | 34 |
3 files changed, 948 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tests/auto/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro b/tests/auto/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro index ac610de..b0d537a 100644 --- a/tests/auto/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro +++ b/tests/auto/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro @@ -3,3 +3,18 @@ load(qttest_p4) SOURCES += tst_networkselftest.cpp QT = core network +wince*: { + addFiles.sources = rfc3252.txt + addFiles.path = . + DEPLOYMENT = addFiles + DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"\\\" +} else:symbian* { + addFiles.sources = rfc3252.txt + addFiles.path = . + DEPLOYMENT = addFiles +} else:vxworks*: { + DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"\\\" +} else { + DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"$$PWD/\\\" +} + diff --git a/tests/auto/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt b/tests/auto/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b80c61b --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/networkselftest/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/networkselftest/tst_networkselftest.cpp b/tests/auto/networkselftest/tst_networkselftest.cpp index 00ccadb..4e60101 100644 --- a/tests/auto/networkselftest/tst_networkselftest.cpp +++ b/tests/auto/networkselftest/tst_networkselftest.cpp @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ #include <QtTest/QtTest> #include <QtNetwork/QtNetwork> + +#ifdef Q_OS_SYMBIAN +// In Symbian OS test data is located in applications private dir +// Current path (C:\private\<UID>) contains only ascii chars +//#define SRCDIR QDir::currentPath() +#define SRCDIR "." +#endif + #include "../network-settings.h" class tst_NetworkSelfTest: public QObject @@ -57,6 +65,7 @@ private slots: void serverReachability(); void remotePortsOpen_data(); void remotePortsOpen(); + void fileLineEndingTest(); // specific protocol tests void ftpServer(); @@ -392,6 +401,31 @@ void tst_NetworkSelfTest::remotePortsOpen() QVERIFY(socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState); } + +void tst_NetworkSelfTest::fileLineEndingTest() +{ + QString referenceName = SRCDIR "/rfc3252.txt"; + long long expectedReferenceSize = 25962; + + QString lineEndingType("LF"); + + QFile reference(referenceName); + QVERIFY(reference.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly)); + QByteArray byteLine = reference.readLine(); + if(byteLine.endsWith("\r\n")) + lineEndingType = "CRLF"; + else if(byteLine.endsWith("\r")) + lineEndingType = "CR"; + + QString referenceAsTextData; + QFile referenceAsText(referenceName); + QVERIFY(referenceAsText.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly)); + referenceAsTextData = referenceAsText.readAll(); + + QVERIFY2(expectedReferenceSize == referenceAsTextData.length(), QString("Reference file %1 has %2 as line ending and file size not matching - Git checkout issue !?!").arg(referenceName, lineEndingType).toLocal8Bit()); + QVERIFY2(!lineEndingType.compare("LF"), QString("Reference file %1 has %2 as line ending - Git checkout issue !?!").arg(referenceName, lineEndingType).toLocal8Bit()); +} + static QList<Chat> ftpChat() { return QList<Chat>() << Chat::expect("220") |