From 14e5bf2963cc48e48b1a9c4c3650df8162d59c09 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thiago Macieira Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:30:41 +0200 Subject: Move these tests to tests/manual. --- tests/auto/network.pro | 2 - .../auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp | 214 - tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h | 99 - .../qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro | 12 - tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile | 17980 ------------------- .../tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp | 739 - tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc | 5 - tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp | 214 + tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.h | 99 + .../network_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro | 12 + tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtest/bigfile | 17980 +++++++++++++++++++ .../tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp | 739 + tests/manual/network_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc | 5 + 13 files changed, 19049 insertions(+), 19051 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp delete mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.h create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtest/bigfile create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp create mode 100644 tests/manual/network_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc diff --git a/tests/auto/network.pro b/tests/auto/network.pro index 7aa4313..4f205fe 100644 --- a/tests/auto/network.pro +++ b/tests/auto/network.pro @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ SUBDIRS=\ qsslerror \ qsslkey \ qsslsocket \ - qtcpsocket_stresstest \ - contains(QT_CONFIG, private_tests): SUBDIRS -= \ qhttpnetworkconnection \ diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp deleted file mode 100644 index 3630674..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,214 +0,0 @@ -/**************************************************************************** -** -** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). -** All rights reserved. -** Contact: Nokia Corporation (qt-info@nokia.com) -** -** This file is part of the FOO module 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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying -** this package. -** -** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. -** -** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact -** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** $QT_END_LICENSE$ -** -****************************************************************************/ - - -#include "minihttpserver.h" -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include - -MiniHttpServer::MiniHttpServer(QObject *parent) : - QThread(parent) -{ - readyToGo = new QSemaphore; - start(); - readyToGo->acquire(); - delete readyToGo; -} - -MiniHttpServer::~MiniHttpServer() -{ - quitObject->deleteLater(); - wait(); -} - -void MiniHttpServer::run() -{ - server = new QTcpServer; - server->listen(QHostAddress::LocalHost); - portnum = server->serverPort(); - connect(server, SIGNAL(newConnection()), this, SLOT(handleConnection()), Qt::DirectConnection); - - quitObject = new QObject; - connect(quitObject, SIGNAL(destroyed()), this, SLOT(quit()), Qt::DirectConnection); - - readyToGo->release(); - exec(); - - // cleanup - delete server; -} - -void MiniHttpServer::handleConnection() -{ - while (server->hasPendingConnections()) { - QTcpSocket *socket = server->nextPendingConnection(); - new MiniHttpServerConnection(socket); // handles its own lifetime - } -} - -MiniHttpServerConnection::MiniHttpServerConnection(QTcpSocket *socket) - : QObject(socket), socket(socket), source(0) -{ - connect(socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(handleReadyRead())); - connect(socket, SIGNAL(bytesWritten(qint64)), SLOT(handleBytesWritten())); - connect(socket, SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(handleDisconnected())); - - timeout.setInterval(30000); - timeout.setSingleShot(true); - connect(&timeout, SIGNAL(timeout()), SLOT(handleTimeout())); - timeout.start(); -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::sendError500() -{ - static const char body[] = - "HTTP/1.1 500 Server Error\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "Content-Length: 0\r\n" - "\r\n"; - socket->write(body, strlen(body)); - socket->disconnectFromHost(); -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::sendError404() -{ - static const char body1[] = - "HTTP/1.1 404 File not found\r\n" - "Content-Length: 0\r\n"; - socket->write(body1, strlen(body1)); - if (connectionClose) { - socket->write("Connection: close\r\n\r\n"); - socket->disconnectFromHost(); - } else { - socket->write("\r\n"); - handlePendingRequest(); - } -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::handlePendingRequest() -{ - int endOfRequest = buffer.indexOf("\r\n\r\n"); - if (endOfRequest == -1) - return; // nothing to do - - QByteArray request = buffer.left(endOfRequest); - buffer = buffer.mid(endOfRequest + 4); - //qDebug("request: %s", request.constData()); - - if (!request.startsWith("GET ")) { - sendError500(); - return; - } - - int eol = request.indexOf("\r\n"); - static const char http11[] = " HTTP/1.1"; - if (memcmp(request.data() + eol - strlen(http11), http11, strlen(http11)) != 0) { - sendError500(); - return; - } - - QUrl uri = QUrl::fromEncoded(request.mid(4, eol - strlen(http11) - 4)); - source.setFileName(":" + uri.path()); - - // connection-close? - request = request.toLower(); - connectionClose = request.contains("\r\nconnection: close\r\n"); - - if (!source.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly)) { - sendError404(); - return; - } - - // success - timeout.stop(); - static const char body[] = - "HTTP/1.1 200 Ok\r\n" - "Content-Type: text/plain\r\n" - "Content-Length: "; - socket->write(body, strlen(body)); - socket->write(QByteArray::number(source.size())); - if (connectionClose) - socket->write("\r\nConnection: close"); - socket->write("\r\n\r\n"); - - handleBytesWritten(); -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleReadyRead() -{ - buffer += socket->readAll(); - if (!source.isOpen()) - handlePendingRequest(); -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleDisconnected() -{ - socket->deleteLater(); // will delete us too -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleBytesWritten() -{ - qint64 maxBytes = qMin(128*1024, source.bytesAvailable()); - maxBytes = qMin(maxBytes, 128*1024 - socket->bytesToWrite()); - if (maxBytes < 0) - return; - - socket->write(source.read(maxBytes)); - - if (source.atEnd()) { - // file ended - source.close(); - if (connectionClose) { - socket->disconnectFromHost(); - } else { - timeout.start(); - handlePendingRequest(); - } - } -} - -void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleTimeout() -{ - socket->disconnectFromHost(); -} diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h deleted file mode 100644 index 9fcc8fc..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h +++ /dev/null @@ -1,99 +0,0 @@ -/**************************************************************************** -** -** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). -** All rights reserved. -** Contact: Nokia Corporation (qt-info@nokia.com) -** -** This file is part of the FOO module 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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying -** this package. -** -** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. -** -** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact -** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** $QT_END_LICENSE$ -** -****************************************************************************/ - - -#ifndef MINIHTTPSERVER_H -#define MINIHTTPSERVER_H - -#include -#include -#include - -class QFile; -class QSemaphore; -class QTcpServer; -class QTcpSocket; - -class MiniHttpServer : public QThread -{ - Q_OBJECT -public: - explicit MiniHttpServer(QObject *parent = 0); - ~MiniHttpServer(); - - int port() { return portnum; } - -protected: - void run(); - -private slots: - void handleConnection(); - -private: - QTcpServer *server; - QObject *quitObject; - QSemaphore *readyToGo; - int portnum; -}; - -class MiniHttpServerConnection: public QObject -{ - Q_OBJECT - QTcpSocket * const socket; - QFile source; - QTimer timeout; - QByteArray buffer; - bool connectionClose; -public: - explicit MiniHttpServerConnection(QTcpSocket *socket); - - void sendError500(); - void sendError404(); - void handlePendingRequest(); - -public slots: - void handleReadyRead(); - void handleBytesWritten(); - void handleDisconnected(); - void handleTimeout(); -}; - -#endif // MINIHTTPSERVER_H diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro deleted file mode 100644 index 47b2682..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12 +0,0 @@ -load(qttest_p4) - -QT = core network - -SOURCES += tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp \ - minihttpserver.cpp - -HEADERS += \ - minihttpserver.h - -RESOURCES += wwwfiles.qrc -QMAKE_RESOURCE_FLAGS += -no-compress diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile deleted file mode 100644 index cb114a2..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile +++ /dev/null @@ -1,17980 +0,0 @@ - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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: - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -3.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 header - as well as the declaration. - -4.2. Example Datagram - - The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 (" - --> - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 7] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 9] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 10] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.2. TCPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 11] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Kennedy Informational [Page 12] - -RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7.3. UDPoXML DTD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp deleted file mode 100644 index 20ae9c0..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp +++ /dev/null @@ -1,739 +0,0 @@ -/**************************************************************************** -** -** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). -** All rights reserved. -** Contact: Nokia Corporation (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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying -** this package. -** -** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. -** -** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact -** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** -** $QT_END_LICENSE$ -** -****************************************************************************/ - -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include -#include - -#ifdef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL -# include -#endif - -#include "minihttpserver.h" -#include "../network-settings.h" - -#include -#ifdef Q_OS_UNIX -# include -# include -# include -# include -# include -# include -# include -# include -# include - -typedef int SOCKET; -# define INVALID_SOCKET -1 -# define SOCKET_ERROR -1 - -#elif defined(Q_OS_WIN) -# include -#endif - -class tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest : public QObject -{ - Q_OBJECT -public: - enum { AttemptCount = 100 }; - tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest(); - MiniHttpServer server; - - qint64 byteCounter; - QNetworkAccessManager manager; - bool intermediateDebug; - -private: - void clearManager(); - -public slots: - void initTestCase_data(); - void init(); - - void slotReadAll() { byteCounter += static_cast(sender())->readAll().size(); } - -private Q_SLOTS: - void nativeBlockingConnectDisconnect(); - void nativeNonBlockingConnectDisconnect(); - void blockingConnectDisconnect(); - void blockingPipelined(); - void blockingMultipleRequests(); - void connectDisconnect(); - void parallelConnectDisconnect_data(); - void parallelConnectDisconnect(); - void namGet_data(); - void namGet(); -}; - -tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest() - : intermediateDebug(qgetenv("QTCPSOCKET_STRESSTEST").toInt() > 1) -{ -#ifdef Q_OS_WIN - WSAData wsadata; - - // IPv6 requires Winsock v2.0 or better. - WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,0), &wsadata); -#elif defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) - ::signal(SIGALRM, SIG_IGN); -#endif -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::initTestCase_data() -{ - QTest::addColumn("isLocalhost"); - QTest::addColumn("hostname"); - QTest::addColumn("port"); - - QTest::newRow("localhost") << true << "localhost" << server.port(); -// QTest::newRow("remote") << false << QtNetworkSettings::serverName() << 80; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::init() -{ - if (qgetenv("QTCPSOCKET_STRESSTEST").toInt() == 0) - QSKIP("Stress test disabled", SkipAll); - - // clear the internal cache -#ifndef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL - if (strncmp(QTest::currentTestFunction(), "nam") == 0) - QSKIP("QNetworkAccessManager tests disabled", SkipAll); -#endif -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::clearManager() -{ -#ifdef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL - QNetworkAccessManagerPrivate::clearCache(&manager); - manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy()); - manager.setCache(0); -#endif -} - -bool nativeLookup(const char *hostname, int port, QByteArray &buf) -{ -#if !defined(QT_NO_GETADDRINFO) && 0 - addrinfo *res = 0; - struct addrinfo hints; - memset(&hints, 0, sizeof(hints)); - hints.ai_family = PF_UNSPEC; - - int result = getaddrinfo(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), QByteArray::number(port).constData(), &hints, &res); - if (!result) - return false; - for (addrinfo *node = res; node; node = node->ai_next) { - if (node->ai_family == AF_INET) { - buf = QByteArray((char *)node->ai_addr, node->ai_addrlen); - break; - } - } - freeaddrinfo(res); -#else - hostent *result = gethostbyname(hostname); - if (!result || result->h_addrtype != AF_INET) - return false; - - struct sockaddr_in s; - s.sin_family = AF_INET; - s.sin_port = htons(port); - s.sin_addr = *(struct in_addr *) result->h_addr_list[0]; - - buf = QByteArray((char *)&s, sizeof s); -#endif - - return !buf.isEmpty(); -} - -bool nativeSelect(int fd, int timeout, bool selectForWrite) -{ - if (timeout < 0) - return false; - - // wait for connected - fd_set fds, fde; - FD_ZERO(&fds); - FD_ZERO(&fde); - FD_SET(fd, &fds); - FD_SET(fd, &fde); - - int ret; - do { - struct timeval tv; - tv.tv_sec = timeout / 1000; - tv.tv_usec = timeout % 1000; - if (selectForWrite) - ret = ::select(fd + 1, 0, &fds, &fde, &tv); - else - ret = ::select(fd + 1, &fds, 0, &fde, &tv); - } while (ret == -1 && errno == EINTR); - return ret != 0; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::nativeBlockingConnectDisconnect() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - -#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) - alarm(10); -#endif - - // look up the host - QByteArray addr; - if (!nativeLookup(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), port, addr)) - QFAIL("Lookup failed"); - - // connect - SOCKET fd = ::socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); - QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); - QVERIFY(::connect(fd, (sockaddr *)addr.data(), addr.size()) != SOCKET_ERROR); - - // send request - { - QByteArray request = "GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"; - qint64 bytesWritten = 0; - while (bytesWritten < request.size()) { - qint64 ret = ::send(fd, request.constData() + bytesWritten, request.size() - bytesWritten, 0); - if (ret == -1) { - ::close(fd); - QFAIL("Timeout"); - } - bytesWritten += ret; - } - } - - // receive reply - char buf[16384]; - while (true) { - qint64 ret = ::recv(fd, buf, sizeof buf, 0); - if (ret == -1) { - ::close(fd); - QFAIL("Timeout"); - } else if (ret == 0) { - break; // EOF - } - byteCounter += ret; - } - ::close(fd); - - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - -#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) - alarm(0); -#endif -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::nativeNonBlockingConnectDisconnect() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - // look up the host - QByteArray addr; - if (!nativeLookup(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), port, addr)) - QFAIL("Lookup failed"); - - SOCKET fd; - - { -#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) - fd = ::socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); - QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); - - // set the socket to non-blocking and start connecting -# if !defined(Q_OS_VXWORKS) - int flags = ::fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0); - QVERIFY(flags != -1); - QVERIFY(::fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK) != -1); -# else // Q_OS_VXWORKS - int onoff = 1; - QVERIFY(::ioctl(socketDescriptor, FIONBIO, &onoff) >= 0); -# endif // Q_OS_VXWORKS - while (true) { - if (::connect(fd, (sockaddr *)addr.data(), addr.size()) == -1) { - QVERIFY2(errno == EINPROGRESS, QByteArray("Error connecting: ").append(strerror(errno)).constData()); - QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); - } else { - break; // connected - } - } -#elif defined(Q_OS_WIN) - fd = ::WSASocket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0, NULL, 0, WSA_FLAG_OVERLAPPED); - QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); - - // set the socket to non-blocking and start connecting - unsigned long buf = v; - unsigned long outBuf; - DWORD sizeWritten = 0; - QVERIFY(::WSAIoctl(fd, FIONBIO, &buf, sizeof(unsigned long), &outBuf, sizeof(unsigned long), &sizeWritten, 0,0) != SOCKET_ERROR); - - while (true) { - int connectResult = ::WSAConnect(fd, sockAddrPtr, sockAddrSize, 0,0,0,0); - if (connectResult == 0 || WSAGetLastError() == WSAEISCONN) { - break; // connected - } else { - QVERIFY2(WSAGetLastError() == WSAEINPROGRESS, "Unexpected error"); - QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); - } - } -#endif - } - - // send request - { - QByteArray request = "GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"; - qint64 bytesWritten = 0; - while (bytesWritten < request.size()) { - qint64 ret = ::send(fd, request.constData() + bytesWritten, request.size() - bytesWritten, 0); - if (ret == -1 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) { - ::close(fd); - QFAIL(QByteArray("Error writing: ").append(strerror(errno)).constData()); - } else if (ret == -1) { - // wait for writing - QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); - continue; - } - bytesWritten += ret; - } - } - - // receive reply - char buf[16384]; - while (true) { - qint64 ret = ::recv(fd, buf, sizeof buf, 0); - if (ret == -1 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) { - ::close(fd); - QFAIL("Timeout"); - } else if (ret == -1) { - // wait for reading - QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), false), "Timeout"); - } else if (ret == 0) { - break; // EOF - } - byteCounter += ret; - } - ::close(fd); - - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingConnectDisconnect() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - QTcpSocket socket; - socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); - - socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"); - while (socket.bytesToWrite()) - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); - - while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { - socket.waitForReadyRead(); - byteCounter += socket.readAll().size(); // discard - } - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingPipelined() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount / 2; ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - QTcpSocket socket; - socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); - - for (int j = 0 ; j < 3; ++j) { - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug("Attempt %d%c", i, 'a' + j); - socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: " + QByteArray(j == 2 ? "close" : "keep-alive") + "\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"); - while (socket.bytesToWrite()) - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); - } - - while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { - socket.waitForReadyRead(); - byteCounter += socket.readAll().size(); // discard - } - - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingMultipleRequests() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount / 5; ++i) { - QTcpSocket socket; - socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); - - for (int j = 0 ; j < 5; ++j) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: keep-alive\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"); - while (socket.bytesToWrite()) - QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); - - qint64 bytesRead = 0; - qint64 bytesExpected = -1; - QByteArray buffer; - while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { - socket.waitForReadyRead(); - buffer += socket.readAll(); - byteCounter += buffer.size(); - int pos = buffer.indexOf("\r\n\r\n"); - if (pos == -1) - continue; - - bytesRead = buffer.length() - pos - 4; - - buffer.truncate(pos + 2); - buffer = buffer.toLower(); - pos = buffer.indexOf("\r\ncontent-length: "); - if (pos == -1) { - qWarning() << "no content-length:" << QString(buffer); - break; - } - pos += strlen("\r\ncontent-length: "); - - int eol = buffer.indexOf("\r\n", pos + 2); - if (eol == -1) { - qWarning() << "invalid header"; - break; - } - - bytesExpected = buffer.mid(pos, eol - pos).toLongLong(); - break; - } - QVERIFY(bytesExpected > 0); - QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(10000), "Timeout"); - - while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000) && bytesExpected > bytesRead) { - socket.waitForReadyRead(); - int blocklen = socket.read(bytesExpected - bytesRead).length(); // discard - bytesRead += blocklen; - byteCounter += blocklen; - } - QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(10000), "Timeout"); - QCOMPARE(bytesRead, bytesExpected); - - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - - socket.disconnectFromHost(); - QVERIFY(socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::UnconnectedState); - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::connectDisconnect() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - QTcpSocket socket; - socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); - - socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"); - connect(&socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); - - QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(&socket, SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(exitLoop())); - QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(30); - QVERIFY2(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout(), "Timeout"); - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::parallelConnectDisconnect_data() -{ - QTest::addColumn("parallelAttempts"); - QTest::newRow("1") << 1; - QTest::newRow("2") << 2; - QTest::newRow("4") << 4; - QTest::newRow("5") << 5; - QTest::newRow("6") << 6; - QTest::newRow("8") << 8; - QTest::newRow("10") << 10; - QTest::newRow("25") << 25; - QTest::newRow("100") << 100; - QTest::newRow("500") << 500; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::parallelConnectDisconnect() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - QFETCH(int, parallelAttempts); - - if (parallelAttempts > 100) { - QFETCH_GLOBAL(bool, isLocalhost); - if (!isLocalhost) - QSKIP("Localhost-only test", SkipSingle); - } - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < qMax(2, AttemptCount/qMax(2, parallelAttempts/4)); ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - QTcpSocket *socket = new QTcpSocket[parallelAttempts]; - for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) { - socket[j].connectToHost(hostname, port); - - socket[j].write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" - "Connection: close\r\n" - "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" - "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" - "\r\n"); - connect(&socket[j], SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); - - QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(&socket[j], SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(exitLoop())); - } - - while (!timeout.hasExpired(30000)) { - QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10); - int done = 0; - for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) - done += socket[j].state() == QAbstractSocket::UnconnectedState ? 1 : 0; - if (done == parallelAttempts) - break; - } - delete[] socket; - QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(30000), "Timeout"); - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::namGet_data() -{ - QTest::addColumn("parallelAttempts"); - QTest::addColumn("pipelineAllowed"); - - QTest::newRow("1") << 1 << false; - QTest::newRow("1p") << 1 << true; - QTest::newRow("2") << 2 << false; - QTest::newRow("2p") << 2 << true; - QTest::newRow("4") << 4 << false; - QTest::newRow("4p") << 4 << true; - QTest::newRow("5") << 5 << false; - QTest::newRow("5p") << 5 << true; - QTest::newRow("6") << 6 << false; - QTest::newRow("6p") << 6 << true; - QTest::newRow("8") << 8 << false; - QTest::newRow("8p") << 8 << true; - QTest::newRow("10") << 10 << false; - QTest::newRow("10p") << 10 << true; - QTest::newRow("25") << 25 << false; - QTest::newRow("25p") << 25 << true; - QTest::newRow("100") << 100 << false; - QTest::newRow("100p") << 100 << true; - QTest::newRow("500") << 500 << false; - QTest::newRow("500p") << 500 << true; -} - -void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::namGet() -{ - QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); - QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); - QFETCH(int, parallelAttempts); - QFETCH(bool, pipelineAllowed); - - if (parallelAttempts > 100) { - QFETCH_GLOBAL(bool, isLocalhost); - if (!isLocalhost) - QSKIP("Localhost-only test", SkipSingle); - } - - double avg = 0; - for (int i = 0; i < qMax(2, AttemptCount/qMax(2, parallelAttempts/4)); ++i) { - QElapsedTimer timeout; - byteCounter = 0; - timeout.start(); - - QUrl url; - url.setScheme("http"); - url.setHost(hostname); - url.setPort(port); - url.setEncodedPath("/qtest/mediumfile"); - QNetworkRequest req(url); - req.setAttribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpPipeliningAllowedAttribute, pipelineAllowed); - - QVector > replies; - replies.resize(parallelAttempts); - for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) { - QNetworkReply *r = manager.get(req); - - connect(r, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); - QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(r, SIGNAL(finished()), SLOT(exitLoop())); - - replies[j] = QSharedPointer(r); - } - - while (!timeout.hasExpired(30000)) { - QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10); - int done = 0; - for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) - done += replies[j]->isFinished() ? 1 : 0; - if (done == parallelAttempts) - break; - } - replies.clear(); - - QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(30000), "Timeout"); - double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); - avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); - if (intermediateDebug) - qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" - << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; - } - qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; -} - -QTEST_MAIN(tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest); - -#include "tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.moc" diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc deleted file mode 100644 index b1d4be6..0000000 --- a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5 +0,0 @@ - - - qtest - - diff --git a/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3630674 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +/**************************************************************************** +** +** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). +** All rights reserved. +** Contact: Nokia Corporation (qt-info@nokia.com) +** +** This file is part of the FOO module 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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying +** this package. +** +** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. +** +** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact +** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** $QT_END_LICENSE$ +** +****************************************************************************/ + + +#include "minihttpserver.h" +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +MiniHttpServer::MiniHttpServer(QObject *parent) : + QThread(parent) +{ + readyToGo = new QSemaphore; + start(); + readyToGo->acquire(); + delete readyToGo; +} + +MiniHttpServer::~MiniHttpServer() +{ + quitObject->deleteLater(); + wait(); +} + +void MiniHttpServer::run() +{ + server = new QTcpServer; + server->listen(QHostAddress::LocalHost); + portnum = server->serverPort(); + connect(server, SIGNAL(newConnection()), this, SLOT(handleConnection()), Qt::DirectConnection); + + quitObject = new QObject; + connect(quitObject, SIGNAL(destroyed()), this, SLOT(quit()), Qt::DirectConnection); + + readyToGo->release(); + exec(); + + // cleanup + delete server; +} + +void MiniHttpServer::handleConnection() +{ + while (server->hasPendingConnections()) { + QTcpSocket *socket = server->nextPendingConnection(); + new MiniHttpServerConnection(socket); // handles its own lifetime + } +} + +MiniHttpServerConnection::MiniHttpServerConnection(QTcpSocket *socket) + : QObject(socket), socket(socket), source(0) +{ + connect(socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(handleReadyRead())); + connect(socket, SIGNAL(bytesWritten(qint64)), SLOT(handleBytesWritten())); + connect(socket, SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(handleDisconnected())); + + timeout.setInterval(30000); + timeout.setSingleShot(true); + connect(&timeout, SIGNAL(timeout()), SLOT(handleTimeout())); + timeout.start(); +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::sendError500() +{ + static const char body[] = + "HTTP/1.1 500 Server Error\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "Content-Length: 0\r\n" + "\r\n"; + socket->write(body, strlen(body)); + socket->disconnectFromHost(); +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::sendError404() +{ + static const char body1[] = + "HTTP/1.1 404 File not found\r\n" + "Content-Length: 0\r\n"; + socket->write(body1, strlen(body1)); + if (connectionClose) { + socket->write("Connection: close\r\n\r\n"); + socket->disconnectFromHost(); + } else { + socket->write("\r\n"); + handlePendingRequest(); + } +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::handlePendingRequest() +{ + int endOfRequest = buffer.indexOf("\r\n\r\n"); + if (endOfRequest == -1) + return; // nothing to do + + QByteArray request = buffer.left(endOfRequest); + buffer = buffer.mid(endOfRequest + 4); + //qDebug("request: %s", request.constData()); + + if (!request.startsWith("GET ")) { + sendError500(); + return; + } + + int eol = request.indexOf("\r\n"); + static const char http11[] = " HTTP/1.1"; + if (memcmp(request.data() + eol - strlen(http11), http11, strlen(http11)) != 0) { + sendError500(); + return; + } + + QUrl uri = QUrl::fromEncoded(request.mid(4, eol - strlen(http11) - 4)); + source.setFileName(":" + uri.path()); + + // connection-close? + request = request.toLower(); + connectionClose = request.contains("\r\nconnection: close\r\n"); + + if (!source.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly)) { + sendError404(); + return; + } + + // success + timeout.stop(); + static const char body[] = + "HTTP/1.1 200 Ok\r\n" + "Content-Type: text/plain\r\n" + "Content-Length: "; + socket->write(body, strlen(body)); + socket->write(QByteArray::number(source.size())); + if (connectionClose) + socket->write("\r\nConnection: close"); + socket->write("\r\n\r\n"); + + handleBytesWritten(); +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleReadyRead() +{ + buffer += socket->readAll(); + if (!source.isOpen()) + handlePendingRequest(); +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleDisconnected() +{ + socket->deleteLater(); // will delete us too +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleBytesWritten() +{ + qint64 maxBytes = qMin(128*1024, source.bytesAvailable()); + maxBytes = qMin(maxBytes, 128*1024 - socket->bytesToWrite()); + if (maxBytes < 0) + return; + + socket->write(source.read(maxBytes)); + + if (source.atEnd()) { + // file ended + source.close(); + if (connectionClose) { + socket->disconnectFromHost(); + } else { + timeout.start(); + handlePendingRequest(); + } + } +} + +void MiniHttpServerConnection::handleTimeout() +{ + socket->disconnectFromHost(); +} diff --git a/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.h b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9fcc8fc --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/minihttpserver.h @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +/**************************************************************************** +** +** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). +** All rights reserved. +** Contact: Nokia Corporation (qt-info@nokia.com) +** +** This file is part of the FOO module 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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying +** this package. +** +** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. +** +** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact +** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** $QT_END_LICENSE$ +** +****************************************************************************/ + + +#ifndef MINIHTTPSERVER_H +#define MINIHTTPSERVER_H + +#include +#include +#include + +class QFile; +class QSemaphore; +class QTcpServer; +class QTcpSocket; + +class MiniHttpServer : public QThread +{ + Q_OBJECT +public: + explicit MiniHttpServer(QObject *parent = 0); + ~MiniHttpServer(); + + int port() { return portnum; } + +protected: + void run(); + +private slots: + void handleConnection(); + +private: + QTcpServer *server; + QObject *quitObject; + QSemaphore *readyToGo; + int portnum; +}; + +class MiniHttpServerConnection: public QObject +{ + Q_OBJECT + QTcpSocket * const socket; + QFile source; + QTimer timeout; + QByteArray buffer; + bool connectionClose; +public: + explicit MiniHttpServerConnection(QTcpSocket *socket); + + void sendError500(); + void sendError404(); + void handlePendingRequest(); + +public slots: + void handleReadyRead(); + void handleBytesWritten(); + void handleDisconnected(); + void handleTimeout(); +}; + +#endif // MINIHTTPSERVER_H diff --git a/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro new file mode 100644 index 0000000..47b2682 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +load(qttest_p4) + +QT = core network + +SOURCES += tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp \ + minihttpserver.cpp + +HEADERS += \ + minihttpserver.h + +RESOURCES += wwwfiles.qrc +QMAKE_RESOURCE_FLAGS += -no-compress diff --git a/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtest/bigfile b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtest/bigfile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb114a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/qtest/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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +3.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 header + as well as the declaration. + +4.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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 (" + --> + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.2. TCPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +7.3. UDPoXML DTD + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +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/manual/network_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp new file mode 100644 index 0000000..20ae9c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,739 @@ +/**************************************************************************** +** +** Copyright (C) 2010 Nokia Corporation and/or its subsidiary(-ies). +** All rights reserved. +** Contact: Nokia Corporation (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 Technology Preview License Agreement accompanying +** this package. +** +** 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 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. +** +** If you have questions regarding the use of this file, please contact +** Nokia at qt-info@nokia.com. +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** +** $QT_END_LICENSE$ +** +****************************************************************************/ + +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +#ifdef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL +# include +#endif + +#include "minihttpserver.h" +#include "../network-settings.h" + +#include +#ifdef Q_OS_UNIX +# include +# include +# include +# include +# include +# include +# include +# include +# include + +typedef int SOCKET; +# define INVALID_SOCKET -1 +# define SOCKET_ERROR -1 + +#elif defined(Q_OS_WIN) +# include +#endif + +class tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest : public QObject +{ + Q_OBJECT +public: + enum { AttemptCount = 100 }; + tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest(); + MiniHttpServer server; + + qint64 byteCounter; + QNetworkAccessManager manager; + bool intermediateDebug; + +private: + void clearManager(); + +public slots: + void initTestCase_data(); + void init(); + + void slotReadAll() { byteCounter += static_cast(sender())->readAll().size(); } + +private Q_SLOTS: + void nativeBlockingConnectDisconnect(); + void nativeNonBlockingConnectDisconnect(); + void blockingConnectDisconnect(); + void blockingPipelined(); + void blockingMultipleRequests(); + void connectDisconnect(); + void parallelConnectDisconnect_data(); + void parallelConnectDisconnect(); + void namGet_data(); + void namGet(); +}; + +tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest() + : intermediateDebug(qgetenv("QTCPSOCKET_STRESSTEST").toInt() > 1) +{ +#ifdef Q_OS_WIN + WSAData wsadata; + + // IPv6 requires Winsock v2.0 or better. + WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,0), &wsadata); +#elif defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) + ::signal(SIGALRM, SIG_IGN); +#endif +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::initTestCase_data() +{ + QTest::addColumn("isLocalhost"); + QTest::addColumn("hostname"); + QTest::addColumn("port"); + + QTest::newRow("localhost") << true << "localhost" << server.port(); +// QTest::newRow("remote") << false << QtNetworkSettings::serverName() << 80; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::init() +{ + if (qgetenv("QTCPSOCKET_STRESSTEST").toInt() == 0) + QSKIP("Stress test disabled", SkipAll); + + // clear the internal cache +#ifndef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL + if (strncmp(QTest::currentTestFunction(), "nam") == 0) + QSKIP("QNetworkAccessManager tests disabled", SkipAll); +#endif +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::clearManager() +{ +#ifdef QT_BUILD_INTERNAL + QNetworkAccessManagerPrivate::clearCache(&manager); + manager.setProxy(QNetworkProxy()); + manager.setCache(0); +#endif +} + +bool nativeLookup(const char *hostname, int port, QByteArray &buf) +{ +#if !defined(QT_NO_GETADDRINFO) && 0 + addrinfo *res = 0; + struct addrinfo hints; + memset(&hints, 0, sizeof(hints)); + hints.ai_family = PF_UNSPEC; + + int result = getaddrinfo(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), QByteArray::number(port).constData(), &hints, &res); + if (!result) + return false; + for (addrinfo *node = res; node; node = node->ai_next) { + if (node->ai_family == AF_INET) { + buf = QByteArray((char *)node->ai_addr, node->ai_addrlen); + break; + } + } + freeaddrinfo(res); +#else + hostent *result = gethostbyname(hostname); + if (!result || result->h_addrtype != AF_INET) + return false; + + struct sockaddr_in s; + s.sin_family = AF_INET; + s.sin_port = htons(port); + s.sin_addr = *(struct in_addr *) result->h_addr_list[0]; + + buf = QByteArray((char *)&s, sizeof s); +#endif + + return !buf.isEmpty(); +} + +bool nativeSelect(int fd, int timeout, bool selectForWrite) +{ + if (timeout < 0) + return false; + + // wait for connected + fd_set fds, fde; + FD_ZERO(&fds); + FD_ZERO(&fde); + FD_SET(fd, &fds); + FD_SET(fd, &fde); + + int ret; + do { + struct timeval tv; + tv.tv_sec = timeout / 1000; + tv.tv_usec = timeout % 1000; + if (selectForWrite) + ret = ::select(fd + 1, 0, &fds, &fde, &tv); + else + ret = ::select(fd + 1, &fds, 0, &fde, &tv); + } while (ret == -1 && errno == EINTR); + return ret != 0; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::nativeBlockingConnectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + +#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) + alarm(10); +#endif + + // look up the host + QByteArray addr; + if (!nativeLookup(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), port, addr)) + QFAIL("Lookup failed"); + + // connect + SOCKET fd = ::socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); + QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); + QVERIFY(::connect(fd, (sockaddr *)addr.data(), addr.size()) != SOCKET_ERROR); + + // send request + { + QByteArray request = "GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"; + qint64 bytesWritten = 0; + while (bytesWritten < request.size()) { + qint64 ret = ::send(fd, request.constData() + bytesWritten, request.size() - bytesWritten, 0); + if (ret == -1) { + ::close(fd); + QFAIL("Timeout"); + } + bytesWritten += ret; + } + } + + // receive reply + char buf[16384]; + while (true) { + qint64 ret = ::recv(fd, buf, sizeof buf, 0); + if (ret == -1) { + ::close(fd); + QFAIL("Timeout"); + } else if (ret == 0) { + break; // EOF + } + byteCounter += ret; + } + ::close(fd); + + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + +#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) && !defined(Q_OS_SYMBIAN) + alarm(0); +#endif +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::nativeNonBlockingConnectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + // look up the host + QByteArray addr; + if (!nativeLookup(QUrl::toAce(hostname).constData(), port, addr)) + QFAIL("Lookup failed"); + + SOCKET fd; + + { +#if defined(Q_OS_UNIX) + fd = ::socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); + QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); + + // set the socket to non-blocking and start connecting +# if !defined(Q_OS_VXWORKS) + int flags = ::fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0); + QVERIFY(flags != -1); + QVERIFY(::fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK) != -1); +# else // Q_OS_VXWORKS + int onoff = 1; + QVERIFY(::ioctl(socketDescriptor, FIONBIO, &onoff) >= 0); +# endif // Q_OS_VXWORKS + while (true) { + if (::connect(fd, (sockaddr *)addr.data(), addr.size()) == -1) { + QVERIFY2(errno == EINPROGRESS, QByteArray("Error connecting: ").append(strerror(errno)).constData()); + QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); + } else { + break; // connected + } + } +#elif defined(Q_OS_WIN) + fd = ::WSASocket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0, NULL, 0, WSA_FLAG_OVERLAPPED); + QVERIFY(fd != INVALID_SOCKET); + + // set the socket to non-blocking and start connecting + unsigned long buf = v; + unsigned long outBuf; + DWORD sizeWritten = 0; + QVERIFY(::WSAIoctl(fd, FIONBIO, &buf, sizeof(unsigned long), &outBuf, sizeof(unsigned long), &sizeWritten, 0,0) != SOCKET_ERROR); + + while (true) { + int connectResult = ::WSAConnect(fd, sockAddrPtr, sockAddrSize, 0,0,0,0); + if (connectResult == 0 || WSAGetLastError() == WSAEISCONN) { + break; // connected + } else { + QVERIFY2(WSAGetLastError() == WSAEINPROGRESS, "Unexpected error"); + QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); + } + } +#endif + } + + // send request + { + QByteArray request = "GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"; + qint64 bytesWritten = 0; + while (bytesWritten < request.size()) { + qint64 ret = ::send(fd, request.constData() + bytesWritten, request.size() - bytesWritten, 0); + if (ret == -1 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) { + ::close(fd); + QFAIL(QByteArray("Error writing: ").append(strerror(errno)).constData()); + } else if (ret == -1) { + // wait for writing + QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), true), "Timeout"); + continue; + } + bytesWritten += ret; + } + } + + // receive reply + char buf[16384]; + while (true) { + qint64 ret = ::recv(fd, buf, sizeof buf, 0); + if (ret == -1 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) { + ::close(fd); + QFAIL("Timeout"); + } else if (ret == -1) { + // wait for reading + QVERIFY2(nativeSelect(fd, 10000 - timeout.elapsed(), false), "Timeout"); + } else if (ret == 0) { + break; // EOF + } + byteCounter += ret; + } + ::close(fd); + + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingConnectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + QTcpSocket socket; + socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); + + socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"); + while (socket.bytesToWrite()) + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); + + while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { + socket.waitForReadyRead(); + byteCounter += socket.readAll().size(); // discard + } + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingPipelined() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount / 2; ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + QTcpSocket socket; + socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); + + for (int j = 0 ; j < 3; ++j) { + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug("Attempt %d%c", i, 'a' + j); + socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: " + QByteArray(j == 2 ? "close" : "keep-alive") + "\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"); + while (socket.bytesToWrite()) + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); + } + + while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { + socket.waitForReadyRead(); + byteCounter += socket.readAll().size(); // discard + } + + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingMultipleRequests() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount / 5; ++i) { + QTcpSocket socket; + socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); + + for (int j = 0 ; j < 5; ++j) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: keep-alive\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"); + while (socket.bytesToWrite()) + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForBytesWritten(), "Timeout"); + + qint64 bytesRead = 0; + qint64 bytesExpected = -1; + QByteArray buffer; + while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { + socket.waitForReadyRead(); + buffer += socket.readAll(); + byteCounter += buffer.size(); + int pos = buffer.indexOf("\r\n\r\n"); + if (pos == -1) + continue; + + bytesRead = buffer.length() - pos - 4; + + buffer.truncate(pos + 2); + buffer = buffer.toLower(); + pos = buffer.indexOf("\r\ncontent-length: "); + if (pos == -1) { + qWarning() << "no content-length:" << QString(buffer); + break; + } + pos += strlen("\r\ncontent-length: "); + + int eol = buffer.indexOf("\r\n", pos + 2); + if (eol == -1) { + qWarning() << "invalid header"; + break; + } + + bytesExpected = buffer.mid(pos, eol - pos).toLongLong(); + break; + } + QVERIFY(bytesExpected > 0); + QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(10000), "Timeout"); + + while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000) && bytesExpected > bytesRead) { + socket.waitForReadyRead(); + int blocklen = socket.read(bytesExpected - bytesRead).length(); // discard + bytesRead += blocklen; + byteCounter += blocklen; + } + QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(10000), "Timeout"); + QCOMPARE(bytesRead, bytesExpected); + + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + + socket.disconnectFromHost(); + QVERIFY(socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::UnconnectedState); + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::connectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < AttemptCount; ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + QTcpSocket socket; + socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); + + socket.write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"); + connect(&socket, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); + + QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(&socket, SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(exitLoop())); + QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(30); + QVERIFY2(!QTestEventLoop::instance().timeout(), "Timeout"); + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::parallelConnectDisconnect_data() +{ + QTest::addColumn("parallelAttempts"); + QTest::newRow("1") << 1; + QTest::newRow("2") << 2; + QTest::newRow("4") << 4; + QTest::newRow("5") << 5; + QTest::newRow("6") << 6; + QTest::newRow("8") << 8; + QTest::newRow("10") << 10; + QTest::newRow("25") << 25; + QTest::newRow("100") << 100; + QTest::newRow("500") << 500; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::parallelConnectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + QFETCH(int, parallelAttempts); + + if (parallelAttempts > 100) { + QFETCH_GLOBAL(bool, isLocalhost); + if (!isLocalhost) + QSKIP("Localhost-only test", SkipSingle); + } + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < qMax(2, AttemptCount/qMax(2, parallelAttempts/4)); ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + QTcpSocket *socket = new QTcpSocket[parallelAttempts]; + for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) { + socket[j].connectToHost(hostname, port); + + socket[j].write("GET /qtest/mediumfile HTTP/1.1\r\n" + "Connection: close\r\n" + "User-Agent: tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest/1.0\r\n" + "Host: " + hostname.toLatin1() + "\r\n" + "\r\n"); + connect(&socket[j], SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); + + QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(&socket[j], SIGNAL(disconnected()), SLOT(exitLoop())); + } + + while (!timeout.hasExpired(30000)) { + QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10); + int done = 0; + for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) + done += socket[j].state() == QAbstractSocket::UnconnectedState ? 1 : 0; + if (done == parallelAttempts) + break; + } + delete[] socket; + QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(30000), "Timeout"); + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::namGet_data() +{ + QTest::addColumn("parallelAttempts"); + QTest::addColumn("pipelineAllowed"); + + QTest::newRow("1") << 1 << false; + QTest::newRow("1p") << 1 << true; + QTest::newRow("2") << 2 << false; + QTest::newRow("2p") << 2 << true; + QTest::newRow("4") << 4 << false; + QTest::newRow("4p") << 4 << true; + QTest::newRow("5") << 5 << false; + QTest::newRow("5p") << 5 << true; + QTest::newRow("6") << 6 << false; + QTest::newRow("6p") << 6 << true; + QTest::newRow("8") << 8 << false; + QTest::newRow("8p") << 8 << true; + QTest::newRow("10") << 10 << false; + QTest::newRow("10p") << 10 << true; + QTest::newRow("25") << 25 << false; + QTest::newRow("25p") << 25 << true; + QTest::newRow("100") << 100 << false; + QTest::newRow("100p") << 100 << true; + QTest::newRow("500") << 500 << false; + QTest::newRow("500p") << 500 << true; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::namGet() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + QFETCH(int, parallelAttempts); + QFETCH(bool, pipelineAllowed); + + if (parallelAttempts > 100) { + QFETCH_GLOBAL(bool, isLocalhost); + if (!isLocalhost) + QSKIP("Localhost-only test", SkipSingle); + } + + double avg = 0; + for (int i = 0; i < qMax(2, AttemptCount/qMax(2, parallelAttempts/4)); ++i) { + QElapsedTimer timeout; + byteCounter = 0; + timeout.start(); + + QUrl url; + url.setScheme("http"); + url.setHost(hostname); + url.setPort(port); + url.setEncodedPath("/qtest/mediumfile"); + QNetworkRequest req(url); + req.setAttribute(QNetworkRequest::HttpPipeliningAllowedAttribute, pipelineAllowed); + + QVector > replies; + replies.resize(parallelAttempts); + for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) { + QNetworkReply *r = manager.get(req); + + connect(r, SIGNAL(readyRead()), SLOT(slotReadAll())); + QTestEventLoop::instance().connect(r, SIGNAL(finished()), SLOT(exitLoop())); + + replies[j] = QSharedPointer(r); + } + + while (!timeout.hasExpired(30000)) { + QTestEventLoop::instance().enterLoop(10); + int done = 0; + for (int j = 0; j < parallelAttempts; ++j) + done += replies[j]->isFinished() ? 1 : 0; + if (done == parallelAttempts) + break; + } + replies.clear(); + + QVERIFY2(!timeout.hasExpired(30000), "Timeout"); + double rate = (byteCounter / timeout.elapsed()); + avg = (i * avg + rate) / (i + 1); + if (intermediateDebug) + qDebug() << i << byteCounter << "bytes in" << timeout.elapsed() << "ms:" + << (rate / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; + } + qDebug() << "Average transfer rate was" << (avg / 1024.0 / 1024 * 1000) << "MB/s"; +} + +QTEST_MAIN(tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest); + +#include "tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.moc" diff --git a/tests/manual/network_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b1d4be6 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/manual/network_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ + + + qtest + + -- cgit v0.12