From 515edc27b0f9738fb3a95f0bb61633b6091fdd5e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thiago Macieira Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:38:48 +0200 Subject: Add a TCP stress-test test --- .../auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp | 214 + tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h | 99 + .../qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro | 11 + tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile | 17980 +++++++++++++++++++ .../tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp | 109 + tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc | 5 + 6 files changed, 18418 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp create mode 100644 tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.cpp new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3630674 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_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/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/minihttpserver.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9fcc8fc --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_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/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2f67535 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtcpsocket_stresstest.pro @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +load(qttest_p4) + +QT = core network + +SOURCES += tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp \ + minihttpserver.cpp + +HEADERS += \ + minihttpserver.h + +RESOURCES += wwwfiles.qrc diff --git a/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/qtest/bigfile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb114a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_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/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aeada4c --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/tst_qtcpsocket_stresstest.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +/**************************************************************************** +** +** 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 "minihttpserver.h" +#include "../network-settings.h" + +class tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest : public QObject +{ + Q_OBJECT +public: + tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest(); + MiniHttpServer server; + +public slots: + void initTestCase_data(); + +private Q_SLOTS: + void blockingConnectDisconnect(); +}; + +tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest() +{ +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::initTestCase_data() +{ + QTest::addColumn("isLocalhost"); + QTest::addColumn("hostname"); + QTest::addColumn("port"); + + QTest::newRow("localhost") << false << "localhost" << server.port(); + QTest::newRow("remote") << true << QtNetworkSettings::serverName() << 80; +} + +void tst_QTcpSocket_stresstest::blockingConnectDisconnect() +{ + QFETCH_GLOBAL(QString, hostname); + QFETCH_GLOBAL(int, port); + + for (int i = 0; i < 50; ++i) { + qDebug("Attempt %d", i); + QTcpSocket socket; + socket.connectToHost(hostname, port); + QVERIFY2(socket.waitForConnected(), "Timeout"); + + socket.write("GET /qtest/bigfile 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"); + + QElapsedTimer timeout; + timeout.start(); + while (socket.state() == QAbstractSocket::ConnectedState && !timeout.hasExpired(10000)) { + socket.waitForReadyRead(); + socket.readAll(); // discard + } + } +} + +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 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b1d4be6 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/auto/qtcpsocket_stresstest/wwwfiles.qrc @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ + + + qtest + + -- cgit v0.12