diff --git a/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro b/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro
index 3cd5f266894..1c0d256dbbb 100644
--- a/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro
+++ b/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro
@@ -4,14 +4,3 @@ TARGET = tst_networkselftest
SOURCES += tst_networkselftest.cpp
QT = core network testlib
-wince*: {
- addFiles.files = rfc3252.txt
- addFiles.path = .
- DEPLOYMENT += addFiles
- DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"\\\"
-} else:vxworks*: {
- DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"\\\"
-} else {
- DEFINES += SRCDIR=\\\"$$PWD/\\\"
-}
-
diff --git a/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt b/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index b80c61bf0a1..00000000000
--- a/tests/auto/other/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,899 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Network Working Group H. Kennedy
-Request for Comments: 3252 Mimezine
-Category: Informational 1 April 2002
-
-
- Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
-
-Status of this Memo
-
- This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
- not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
- memo is unlimited.
-
-Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
-
-Abstract
-
- This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer
- protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
-
-1. Introduction
-
-1.1. Overview
-
- This document describes the Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
- (BLOAT): a reformulation of a widely-deployed network-layer protocol
- (IP [RFC791]), and two associated transport layer protocols (TCP
- [RFC793] and UDP [RFC768]) as XML [XML] applications. It also
- describes methods for transporting BLOAT over Ethernet and IEEE 802
- networks as well as encapsulating BLOAT in IP for gatewaying BLOAT
- across the public Internet.
-
-1.2. Motivation
-
- The wild popularity of XML as a basis for application-level protocols
- such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol [RFC3080], the Simple
- Object Access Protocol [SOAP], and Jabber [JABBER] prompted
- investigation into the possibility of extending the use of XML in the
- protocol stack. Using XML at both the transport and network layer in
- addition to the application layer would provide for an amazing amount
- of power and flexibility while removing dependencies on proprietary
- and hard-to-understand binary protocols. This protocol unification
- would also allow applications to use a single XML parser for all
- aspects of their operation, eliminating developer time spent figuring
- out the intricacies of each new protocol, and moving the hard work of
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 1]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
- parsing to the XML toolset. The use of XML also mitigates concerns
- over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at the root of many
- network application bugs.
-
-1.3. Relation to Existing Protocols
-
- The reformulations specified in this RFC follow as closely as
- possible the spirit of the RFCs on which they are based, and so MAY
- contain elements or attributes that would not be needed in a pure
- reworking (e.g. length attributes, which are implicit in XML.)
-
- The layering of network and transport protocols are maintained in
- this RFC despite the optimizations that could be made if the line
- were somewhat blurred (i.e. merging TCP and IP into a single, larger
- element in the DTD) in order to foster future use of this protocol as
- a basis for reformulating other protocols (such as ICMP.)
-
- Other than the encoding, the behavioral aspects of each of the
- existing protocols remain unchanged. Routing, address spaces, TCP
- congestion control, etc. behave as specified in the extant standards.
- Adapting to new standards and experimental algorithm heuristics for
- improving performance will become much easier once the move to BLOAT
- has been completed.
-
-1.4. Requirement Levels
-
- The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
- "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
- document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
- [RFC2119].
-
-2. IPoXML
-
- This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC.
- IPoXML is the root protocol REQUIRED for effective use of TCPoXML
- (section 3.) and higher-level application protocols.
-
- The DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.1.
-
- The routing of IPoXML can be easily implemented on hosts with an XML
- parser, as the regular structure lends itself handily to parsing and
- validation of the document/datagram and then processing the
- destination address, TTL, and checksum before sending it on to its
- next-hop.
-
- The reformulation of IPv4 was chosen over IPv6 [RFC2460] due to the
- wider deployment of IPv4 and the fact that implementing IPv6 as XML
- would have exceeded the 1500 byte Ethernet MTU.
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 2]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
- All BLOAT implementations MUST use - and specify - the UTF-8 encoding
- of RFC 2279 [RFC2279]. All BLOAT document/datagrams MUST be well-
- formed and include the XMLDecl.
-
-2.1. IP Description
-
- A number of items have changed (for the better) from the original IP
- specification. Bit-masks, where present have been converted into
- human-readable values. IP addresses are listed in their dotted-
- decimal notation [RFC1123]. Length and checksum values are present
- as decimal integers.
-
- To calculate the length and checksum fields of the IP element, a
- canonicalized form of the element MUST be used. The canonical form
- SHALL have no whitespace (including newline characters) between
- elements and only one space character between attributes. There
- SHALL NOT be a space following the last attribute in an element.
-
- An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums, as the
- length field will vary based on the size of the checksum.
-
- The payload element bears special attention. Due to the character
- set restrictions of XML, the payload of IP datagrams (which MAY
- contain arbitrary data) MUST be encoded for transport. This RFC
- REQUIRES the contents of the payload to be encoded in the base-64
- encoding of RFC 2045 [RFC2045], but removes the requirement that the
- encoded output MUST be wrapped on 76-character lines.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 3]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-2.2. Example Datagram
-
- The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-3. TCPoXML
-
- This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC. The
- DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.2.
-
-3.1. TCP Description
-
- A number of items have changed from the original TCP specification.
- Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
- values. Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
- integers.
-
- To calculate the length and checksum fields of the TCP element, a
- canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1.
-
- An iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in
- section 2.1.
-
- The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 4]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
- The TCP offset element was expanded to a maximum of 255 from 16 to
- allow for the increased size of the header in XML.
-
- TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the header
- as well as the declaration.
-
-3.2. Example Datagram
-
- The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-4. UDPoXML
-
- This protocol MUST be implemented to be compliant with this RFC. The
- DTD for this document type can be found in section 7.3.
-
-4.1. UDP Description
-
- A number of items have changed from the original UDP specification.
- Bit-masks, where present have been converted into human-readable
- values. Length and checksum and port values are present as decimal
- integers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 5]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
- To calculate the length and checksum fields of the UDP element, a
- canonicalized form of the element MUST be used as in section 2.1. An
- iterative method SHOULD be used to calculate checksums as in section
- 2.1.
-
- The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
-
- UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the header
- as well as the declaration.
-
-4.2. Example Datagram
-
- The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-5. Network Transport
-
- This document provides for the transmission of BLOAT datagrams over
- two common families of physical layer transport. Future RFCs will
- address additional transports as routing vendors catch up to the
- specification, and we begin to see BLOAT routed across the Internet
- backbone.
-
-5.1. Ethernet
-
- BLOAT is encapsulated in Ethernet datagrams as in [RFC894] with the
- exception that the type field of the Ethernet frame MUST contain the
- value 0xBEEF. The first 5 octets of the Ethernet frame payload will
- be 0x3c 3f 78 6d 6c ("
- -->
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 7]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 9]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 10]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-7.2. TCPoXML DTD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 11]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 12]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-7.3. UDPoXML DTD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 13]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-8. Security Considerations
-
- XML, as a subset of SGML, has the same security considerations as
- specified in SGML Media Types [RFC1874]. Security considerations
- that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also likely apply to BLOAT as it does
- not attempt to correct for issues not related to message format.
-
-9. References
-
- [JABBER] Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
- February 2002. (Work in Progress)
-
- [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
- August 1980.
-
- [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
- September 1981.
-
- [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
- 793, September 1981.
-
- [RFC894] Hornig, C., "Standard for the Transmission of IP
- Datagrams over Ethernet Networks.", RFC 894, April 1984.
-
- [RFC1042] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the
- Transmission of IP Datagrams Over IEEE 802 Networks", STD
- 43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
-
- [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
- Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
-
- [RFC1874] Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
- 1995.
-
- [RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
- October 1996.
-
- [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
- Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
- Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
-
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
- Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- [RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
- 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 14]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
- [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
- (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
-
- [RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
- RFC 3080, March 2001.
-
- [SOAP] Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A.,
- Mendelsohn, N., Nielsen, H. F., Thatte, S. Winer, D.,
- "Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1" World Wide Web
- Consortium Note, May 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/
-
- [XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., "Extensible
- Markup Language (XML)" World Wide Web Consortium
- Recommendation REC- xml-19980210.
- http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210
-
-10. Author's Address
-
- Hugh Kennedy
- Mimezine
- 1060 West Addison
- Chicago, IL 60613
- USA
-
- EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 15]
-
-RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
-
-
-11. Full Copyright Statement
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
-
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
- others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
- or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
- and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
- kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
- included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
- document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
- the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
- Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
- developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
- copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
- followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
- English.
-
- The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
- revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
-
- This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
- "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
- TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
- BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
- HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
- MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-
-Acknowledgement
-
- Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
- Internet Society.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Kennedy Informational [Page 16]
-