RFC3252 日本語訳
3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport. H. Kennedy. April 1 2002. (Format: TXT=25962 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
英語原文
Network Working Group H. Kennedy Request for Comments: 3252 Mimezine Category: Informational 1 April 2002
Network Working Group H. Kennedy Request for Comments: 3252 Mimezine Category: Informational 1 April 2002
Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport
Status of this Memo
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.
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 Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Abstract
This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
This document defines a reformulation of IP and two transport layer protocols (TCP and UDP) as XML applications.
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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.)
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.
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
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].
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
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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Kennedy Informational [Page 3] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
2.2. Example Datagram
2.2. Example Datagram
The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
The following is an example IPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
<ip>
<header length="474">
<version value="4"/>
<tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal"
relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/>
<total.length value="461"/>
<id value="1"/>
<flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/>
<offset value="0"/>
<ttl value="255"/>
<protocol value="6"/>
<checksum value="8707"/>
<source address="10.0.0.22"/>
<destination address="10.0.0.1"/>
<options>
<end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/>
</options>
<padding pad="0"/>
</header>
<payload>
</payload>
</ip>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> <ip> <header length="474"> <version value="4"/> <tos precedence="Routine" delay="Normal" throughput="Normal" relibility="Normal" reserved="0"/> <total.length value="461"/> <id value="1"/> <flags reserved="0" df="dont" mf="last"/> <offset value="0"/> <ttl value="255"/> <protocol value="6"/> <checksum value="8707"/> <source address="10.0.0.22"/> <destination address="10.0.0.1"/> <options> <end copied="0" class="0" number="0"/> </options> <padding pad="0"/> </header> <payload> </payload> </ip>
3. TCPoXML
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 <?xml?> header as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
TCPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
3.2. Example Datagram
3.2. Example Datagram
The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
The following is an example TCPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> <tcp> <tcp.header> <src port="31415"/> <dest port="42424"/> <sequence number="322622954"/> <acknowledgement number="689715995"/> <offset number=""/> <reserved value="0"/> <control syn="1" ack="1"/> <window size="1"/> <urgent pointer="0"/> <checksum value="2988"/> <tcp.options> <tcp.end kind="0"/> </tcp.options> <padding pad="0"/> </tcp.header> <payload> </payload> </tcp>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> <tcp> <tcp.header> <src port="31415"/> <dest port="42424"/> <sequence number="322622954"/> <acknowledgement number="689715995"/> <offset number=""/> <reserved value="0"/> <control syn="1" ack="1"/> <window size="1"/> <urgent pointer="0"/> <checksum value="2988"/> <tcp.options> <tcp.end kind="0"/> </tcp.options> <padding pad="0"/> </tcp.header> <payload> </payload> </tcp>
4. UDPoXML
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
The payload element MUST be encoded as in section 2.1.
UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
UDPoXML datagrams encapsulated by IPoXML MAY omit the <?xml?> header as well as the <!DOCTYPE> declaration.
4.2. Example Datagram
4.2. Example Datagram
The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
The following is an example UDPoXML datagram with an empty payload:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> <udp> <udp.header> <src port="31415"/> <dest port="42424"/> <udp.length value="143"/> <checksum value="2988"/> </udp.header> <payload> </payload> </udp>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> <udp> <udp.header> <src port="31415"/> <dest port="42424"/> <udp.length value="143"/> <checksum value="2988"/> </udp.header> <payload> </payload> </udp>
5. Network Transport
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.
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
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 ("<?xml".)
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 ("<?xml".)
5.2. IEEE 802
5.2. IEEE 802
BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
BLOAT is encapsulated in IEEE 802 Networks as in [RFC1042] except that the protocol type code for IPoXML is 0xBEEF.
Kennedy Informational [Page 6] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
Kennedy Informational [Page 6] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
6. Gatewaying over IP
6. Gatewaying over IP
In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
In order to facilitate the gradual introduction of BLOAT into the public Internet, BLOAT MAY be encapsulated in IP as in [RFC2003] to gateway between networks that run BLOAT natively on their LANs.
7. DTDs
7. DTDs
The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the Network DTD (7.1.)
The Transport DTDs (7.2. and 7.3.) build on the definitions in the Network DTD (7.1.)
The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
The DTDs are referenced by their PubidLiteral and SystemLiteral (from [XML]) although it is understood that most IPoXML implementations will not need to pull down the DTD, as it will normally be embedded in the implementation, and presents something of a catch-22 if you need to load part of your network protocol over the network.
7.1. IPoXML DTD
7.1. IPoXML DTD
<!--
DTD for IP over XML.
Refer to this DTD as:
<!-- DTD for IP over XML. Refer to this DTD as:
<!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
-->
<!--
DTD data types:
<!DOCTYPE ip PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 IP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> --> <!-- DTD data types:
Digits [0..9]+
Digits [0..9]+
Precedence "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl |
CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate |
Priority | Routine"
Precedence "NetworkControl | InternetworkControl | CRITIC | FlashOverride | Flash | Immediate | Priority | Routine"
IP4Addr "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
IP4Addr "dotted-decimal" notation of [RFC1123]
Class [0..3]
Class [0..3]
Sec "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG |
Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
Sec "Unclassified | Confidential | EFTO | MMMM | PROG | Restricted | Secret | Top Secret | Reserved"
Compartments [0..65535]
Compartments [0..65535]
Handling [0..65535]
Handling [0..65535]
TCC [0..16777216]
TCC [0..16777216]
-->
-->
Kennedy Informational [Page 7] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
Kennedy Informational [Page 7] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
<!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % Digits "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Precedence "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % IP4Addr "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Class "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Sec "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Compartments "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % Handling "CDATA"> <!ENTITY % TCC "CDATA">
<!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
<!ELEMENT ip (header, payload)>
<!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl,
protocol, checksum, source, destination, options,
padding)>
<!-- length of header in 32-bit words -->
<!ATTLIST header
length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT header (version, tos, total.length, id, flags, offset, ttl, protocol, checksum, source, destination, options, padding)> <!-- length of header in 32-bit words --> <!ATTLIST header length %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT version EMPTY>
<!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" -->
<!ATTLIST version
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT version EMPTY> <!-- ip version. SHOULD be "4" --> <!ATTLIST version value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tos EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tos
precedence %Precedence; #REQUIRED
delay (normal | low) #REQUIRED
throughput (normal | high) #REQUIRED
relibility (normal | high) #REQUIRED
reserved CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT tos EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tos precedence %Precedence; #REQUIRED delay (normal | low) #REQUIRED throughput (normal | high) #REQUIRED relibility (normal | high) #REQUIRED reserved CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY>
<!--
total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be
less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local
ethernets).
-->
<!ATTLIST total.length
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT total.length EMPTY> <!-- total length of datagram (header and payload) in octets, MUST be less than 65,535 (and SHOULD be less than 1024 for IPoXML on local ethernets). --> <!ATTLIST total.length value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT id EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
<!ATTLIST id
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT id EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 --> <!ATTLIST id value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT flags EMPTY> <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments --> <!ATTLIST flags
<!ELEMENT flags EMPTY> <!-- df = don't fragment, mf = more fragments --> <!ATTLIST flags
Kennedy Informational [Page 8] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
Kennedy Informational [Page 8] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
reserved CDATA #FIXED "0"
df (may|dont) #REQUIRED
mf (last|more) #REQUIRED>
reserved CDATA #FIXED "0" df (may|dont) #REQUIRED mf (last|more) #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks -->
<!ATTLIST offset
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT offset EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= offset <= 8192 measured in 8 octet (64-bit) chunks --> <!ATTLIST offset value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 -->
<!ATTLIST ttl
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT ttl EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= ttl <= 255 --> <!ATTLIST ttl value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) -->
<!ATTLIST protocol
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT protocol EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= protocol <= 255 (per IANA) --> <!ATTLIST protocol value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) -->
<!ATTLIST checksum
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT checksum EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= checksum <= 65535 (over header only) --> <!ATTLIST checksum value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT source EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST source
address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT source EMPTY> <!ATTLIST source address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT destination EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST destination
address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT destination EMPTY> <!ATTLIST destination address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record
| stream | timestamp )*>
<!ELEMENT options ( end | noop | security | loose | strict | record | stream | timestamp )*>
<!ELEMENT end EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST end
copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT end EMPTY> <!ATTLIST end copied (0|1) #REQUIRED class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT noop EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST noop
copied (0|1) #REQUIRED
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "1">
<!ELEMENT noop EMPTY> <!ATTLIST noop copied (0|1) #REQUIRED class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "1">
<!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
<!ELEMENT security EMPTY>
Kennedy Informational [Page 9] 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
<!ATTLIST security
copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "2"
length CDATA #FIXED "11"
security %Sec; #REQUIRED
compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED
handling %Handling; #REQUIRED
tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT loose (hop)+>
<!ATTLIST loose
copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "3"
length %Digits; #REQUIRED
pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST security copied CDATA #FIXED "1" class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "2" length CDATA #FIXED "11" security %Sec; #REQUIRED compartments %Compartments; #REQUIRED handling %Handling; #REQUIRED tcc %TCC; #REQUIRED> <!ELEMENT loose (hop)+> <!ATTLIST loose copied CDATA #FIXED "1" class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "3" length %Digits; #REQUIRED pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT hop EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST hop
address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT hop EMPTY> <!ATTLIST hop address %IP4Addr; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT strict (hop)+>
<!ATTLIST strict
copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "9"
length %Digits; #REQUIRED
pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT strict (hop)+> <!ATTLIST strict copied CDATA #FIXED "1" class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "9" length %Digits; #REQUIRED pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT record (hop)+>
<!ATTLIST record
copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "7"
length %Digits; #REQUIRED
pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT record (hop)+> <!ATTLIST record copied CDATA #FIXED "0" class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "7" length %Digits; #REQUIRED pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT stream EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 -->
<!ATTLIST stream
copied CDATA #FIXED "1"
class CDATA #FIXED "0"
number CDATA #FIXED "8"
length CDATA #FIXED "4"
id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT stream EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= id <= 65,535 --> <!ATTLIST stream copied CDATA #FIXED "1" class CDATA #FIXED "0" number CDATA #FIXED "8" length CDATA #FIXED "4" id %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+> <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
<!ELEMENT timestamp (tstamp)+> <!-- 0 <= oflw <=15 -->
Kennedy Informational [Page 10] 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
<!ATTLIST timestamp
copied CDATA #FIXED "0"
class CDATA #FIXED "2"
number CDATA #FIXED "4"
length %Digits; #REQUIRED
pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED
oflw %Digits; #REQUIRED
flag (0 | 1 | 3) #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST timestamp copied CDATA #FIXED "0" class CDATA #FIXED "2" number CDATA #FIXED "4" length %Digits; #REQUIRED pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED oflw %Digits; #REQUIRED flag (0 | 1 | 3) #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tstamp
time %Digits; #REQUIRED
address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED>
<!--
padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary.
pad MUST be "0"*
-->
<!ELEMENT padding EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST padding
pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tstamp EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tstamp time %Digits; #REQUIRED address %IP4Addr; #IMPLIED> <!-- padding to bring header to 32-bit boundary. pad MUST be "0"* --> <!ELEMENT padding EMPTY> <!ATTLIST padding pad CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified
by section 2.1 of this RFC -->
<!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
<!-- payload MUST be encoded as base-64 [RFC2045], as modified by section 2.1 of this RFC --> <!ELEMENT payload (CDATA)>
7.2. TCPoXML DTD
7.2. TCPoXML DTD
<!--
DTD for TCP over XML.
Refer to this DTD as:
<!-- DTD for TCP over XML. Refer to this DTD as:
<!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
-->
<!DOCTYPE tcp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 TCP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> -->
<!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations --> <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
<!-- the pseudoheader is only included for checksum calculations --> <!ELEMENT tcp (tcp.pseudoheader?, tcp.header, payload)>
<!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset,
reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent,
tcp.options, padding)>
<!ELEMENT tcp.header (src, dest, sequence, acknowledgement, offset, reserved, control, window, checksum, urgent, tcp.options, padding)>
<!ELEMENT src EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
<!ATTLIST src
port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT src EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 --> <!ATTLIST src port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT dest EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
<!ELEMENT dest EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= port <= 65,535 -->
Kennedy Informational [Page 11] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
Kennedy Informational [Page 11] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
<!ATTLIST dest
port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST dest port %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
<!ATTLIST sequence
number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT sequence EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 --> <!ATTLIST sequence number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 -->
<!ATTLIST acknowledgement
number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT acknowledgement EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= number <= 4294967295 --> <!ATTLIST acknowledgement number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT offset EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= number <= 255 -->
<!ATTLIST offset
number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT offset EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= number <= 255 --> <!ATTLIST offset number %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST reserved
value CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT reserved EMPTY> <!ATTLIST reserved value CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT control EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST control
urg (0|1) #IMPLIED
ack (0|1) #IMPLIED
psh (0|1) #IMPLIED
rst (0|1) #IMPLIED
syn (0|1) #IMPLIED
fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT control EMPTY> <!ATTLIST control urg (0|1) #IMPLIED ack (0|1) #IMPLIED psh (0|1) #IMPLIED rst (0|1) #IMPLIED syn (0|1) #IMPLIED fin (0|1) #IMPLIED>
<!ELEMENT window EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 -->
<!ATTLIST window
size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT window EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= size <= 65,535 --> <!ATTLIST window size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!--
checksum as in ip, but with
the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element:
-->
<!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
tcp.length)>
<!-- checksum as in ip, but with the following pseudo-header added into the tcp element: --> <!ELEMENT tcp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol, tcp.length)>
<!--
tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
<!-- tcp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
the pseudoheader.
-->
the pseudoheader. -->
Kennedy Informational [Page 12] 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
<!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tcp.length
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tcp.length EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tcp.length value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY>
<!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 -->
<!ATTLIST urgent
pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT urgent EMPTY> <!-- 0 <= pointer <= 65,535 --> <!ATTLIST urgent pointer %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
<!ELEMENT tcp.options (tcp.end | tcp.noop | tcp.mss)+>
<!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tcp.end
kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT tcp.end EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tcp.end kind CDATA #FIXED "0">
<!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tcp.noop
kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
<!ELEMENT tcp.noop EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tcp.noop kind CDATA #FIXED "1">
<!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST tcp.mss
kind CDATA #FIXED "2"
length CDATA #FIXED "4"
size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!ELEMENT tcp.mss EMPTY> <!ATTLIST tcp.mss kind CDATA #FIXED "2" length CDATA #FIXED "4" size %Digits; #REQUIRED>
7.3. UDPoXML DTD
7.3. UDPoXML DTD
<!--
DTD for UDP over XML.
Refer to this DTD as:
<!-- DTD for UDP over XML. Refer to this DTD as:
<!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd">
-->
<!DOCTYPE udp PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD BLOAT 1.0 UDP//EN" "bloat.dtd"> -->
<!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
<!ELEMENT udp (udp.pseudoheader?, udp.header, payload)>
<!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
<!ELEMENT udp.header (src, dest, udp.length, checksum)>
<!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol,
udp.length)>
<!ELEMENT udp.pseudoheader (source, destination, protocol, udp.length)>
<!--
udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of
the pseudoheader.
-->
<!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST udp.length
value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
<!-- udp header + data length in octets. does not include the size of the pseudoheader. --> <!ELEMENT udp.length EMPTY> <!ATTLIST udp.length value %Digits; #REQUIRED>
Kennedy Informational [Page 13] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
Kennedy Informational [Page 13] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
8. Security Considerations
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.
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
9. References
[JABBER] Miller, J., "Jabber", draft-miller-jabber-00.txt,
February 2002. (Work in Progress)
[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.
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, 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.
[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.
[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.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1874] Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December
1995.
[RFC1874] Levinson, E., "SGML Media Types", RFC 1874, December 1995.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC2003] パーキンス、C.、「IPの中のIPカプセル化」、RFC2003、1996年10月。
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
解放された[RFC2045]、N.、およびN.Borenstein、「マルチパーパスインターネットメールエクステンション(MIME)は1つを分けます」。 「インターネットメッセージ本体の形式」、RFC2045、1996年11月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] ブラドナー、S.、「Indicate Requirement LevelsへのRFCsにおける使用のためのキーワード」、BCP14、RFC2119、1997年3月。
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2279]Yergeau、1998年1月のF.、「UTF-8、ISO10646の変化形式」RFC2279。
Kennedy Informational [Page 14] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
ケネディInformationalの[14ページ]RFC3252の2進の語彙八重奏臨時の輸送2002年4月1日
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2460]デアリング、S.とR.Hinden、「インターネットプロトコル、バージョン6(IPv6)仕様」、RFC2460、12月1998日
[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
RFC 3080, March 2001.
[RFC3080] ローズ、M.、「ブロックの広げることができる交換プロトコルコア」、RFC3080、2001年3月。
[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/
[石鹸] 箱、D.、Ehnebuske、D.、Kakivaya、G.、俗人、A.、メンデルゾーン、N.、ニールセン、H.F.、Thatte、S.ワイナー、D.、「1.1インチのSimple Object Access Protocol(石鹸)ワールドワイドウェブコンソーシアム注意、2000年5月の 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
[XML]は、ワールドワイドウェブコンソーシアムRecommendation REC- xml-19980210T.、パオリ、J.、Sperberg-マックィーン、C.M.、「拡張マークアップ言語(XML)」 http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210 をいななかせます。
10. Author's Address
10. 作者のアドレス
Hugh Kennedy Mimezine 1060 West Addison Chicago, IL 60613 USA
西ヒューケネディMimezine1060アディソン・IL60613シカゴ(米国)
EMail: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
メール: kennedyh@engin.umich.edu
Kennedy Informational [Page 15] RFC 3252 Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport 1 April 2002
ケネディInformationalの[15ページ]RFC3252の2進の語彙八重奏臨時の輸送2002年4月1日
11. Full Copyright Statement
11. 完全な著作権宣言文
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright(C)インターネット協会(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.
それに関するこのドキュメントと翻訳は、コピーして、それが批評するか、またはそうでなければわかる他のもの、および派生している作品に提供するか、または準備されているかもしれなくて、コピーされて、発行されて、全体か一部広げられた実現を助けるかもしれません、どんな種類の制限なしでも、上の版権情報とこのパラグラフがそのようなすべてのコピーと派生している作品の上に含まれていれば。 しかしながら、このドキュメント自体は何らかの方法で変更されないかもしれません、インターネット協会か他のインターネット組織の版権情報か参照を取り除くのなどように、それを英語以外の言語に翻訳するのが著作権のための手順がインターネットStandardsの過程で定義したどのケースに従わなければならないか、必要に応じてさもなければ、インターネット標準を開発する目的に必要であるのを除いて。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上に承諾された限られた許容は、永久であり、インターネット協会、後継者または案配によって取り消されないでしょう。
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.
このドキュメントとそして、「そのままで」という基礎とインターネットの振興発展を目的とする組織に、インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースが速達の、または、暗示しているすべての保証を放棄するかどうかというここにことであり、他を含んでいて、含まれて、情報の使用がここに侵害しないどんな保証も少しもまっすぐになるという情報か市場性か特定目的への適合性のどんな黙示的な保証。
Acknowledgement
承認
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC Editor機能のための基金は現在、インターネット協会によって提供されます。
Kennedy Informational [Page 16]
ケネディInformationalです。[16ページ]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
