From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt | 899 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 899 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b80c61b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3252.txt @@ -0,0 +1,899 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group H. Kennedy +Request for Comments: 3252 Mimezine +Category: Informational 1 April 2002 + + + Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer + protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications. + +1. Introduction + +1.1. Overview + + This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport + (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol + (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP + [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications. It also + describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802 + networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT + across the public Internet. + +1.2. Motivation + + The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols + such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple + Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted + investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the + protocol stack. Using XML at both the transport and network layer in + addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount + of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary + and hard-to-understand binary protocols. This protocol unification + would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all + aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring + out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + parsing to the XML toolset. The use of XML also mitigates concerns + over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many + network application bugs. + +1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols + + The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as + possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY + contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure + reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.) + + The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in + this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line + were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger + element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as + a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.) + + Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the + existing protocols remain unchanged. Routing, address spaces, TCP + congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards. + Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for + improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT + has been completed. + +1.4. Requirement Levels + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 + [RFC2119]. + +2. IPoXML + + This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC. + IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML + (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols. + + The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1. + + The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML + parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and + validation of the document/datagram and then processing the + destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its + next-hop. + + The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the + wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML + would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU. + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + + All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding + of RFC 2279 [RFC2279]. All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well- + formed and include the XMLDecl. + +2.1. IP Description + + A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP + specification. Bit-masks, where present have been converted into + human-readable values. IP addresses are listed in their dotted- + decimal notation [RFC1123]. Length and checksum values are present + as decimal integers. + + To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a + canonicalized form of the element MUST be used. The canonical form + SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between + elements and only one space character between attributes. There + SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element. + + An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the + length field will vary based on the size of the checksum. + + The payload element bears special attention. Due to the character + set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY + contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC + REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64 + encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the + encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kennedy Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002 + + +2.2. Example Datagram + + The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload: + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +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] + -- cgit v1.2.3