From c08fb806bb75db7b7b71103e47d5c6c3287ad011 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kurt Korbatits Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:32:06 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Removed rfc3252.txt from networkselftest unittest - no longer needed after test that used it was removed Change-Id: I63fc8a9db07f9250507becb9bf6c2aefe0fdc254 Reviewed-by: Jason McDonald Reviewed-by: Rohan McGovern --- .../other/networkselftest/networkselftest.pro | 11 - tests/auto/other/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt | 899 ------------------ 2 files changed, 910 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 tests/auto/other/networkselftest/rfc3252.txt 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] -