Technology aggregate

Drafts and non-RFC standards

Drafts and non-RFC standards tracked near RFC work. The RFCs whose summary names the drafts aggregate, with their mandatory and optional coverage.

All profiles · All RFCs

Mandatory61.2%74 of 121 (61.2%)

MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL and SHALL NOT rows of the walked RFCs that a recorded test break proves.

Optional9.8%6 of 61 (9.8%)

MAY, NOT RECOMMENDED, OPTIONAL, RECOMMENDED, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT rows, counted the same way.

Mandatory ceiling96.7%117 of 121 (96.7%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 1 of 121 (0.8%); Met by a lower layer: 1 of 121 (0.8%); Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 2 of 121 (1.7%)

Attainable mandatory rows under current classifications, over the unchanged total.

Optional ceiling100.0%61 of 61 (100.0%)

Attainable optional rows under current classifications, over the unchanged total.

Not walked0of 8 RFCs

RFCs with no valid extraction sign-off: their rows count in neither figure.

Mandatory registernot completeevery row proven, none unwalked

A profile is complete only when it requires at least one RFC and none of them is unwalked.

Mandatory ceiling: 117 of 121 (96.7%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 1 of 121 (0.8%); Met by a lower layer: 1 of 121 (0.8%); Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 2 of 121 (1.7%). Optional ceiling: 61 of 61 (100.0%). Lowest mandatory ceiling: sflow-v5 29 of 32 (90.6%). Lowest optional ceiling: draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability 4 of 4 (100.0%). Ceilings describe current classifications, not an immutable Linux maximum. Not-applicable and feature-declined classifications can be revisited. Every gap remains work Ze owes.

Tree

Roots first: an RFC sits one level above the highest level of the RFCs it builds on, and the RFCs of one citation cycle share a level. Each bar is the share of that figure's rows a recorded break proves; the ceiling below it shows attainable rows under current classifications. An RFC that is not walked shows an empty bar and no figure or ceiling.

Level 3

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
SFLOW-V5 sFlow: A Method for Monitoring Traffic in Switched and Routed Networks 22 of 32 (68.8%)Ceiling: 29 of 32 (90.6%); excluded: Optional feature not offered (classification can be revisited): 1 of 32 (3.1%); Met by a lower layer: 1 of 32 (3.1%); Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 1 of 32 (3.1%) 3 of 11 (27.3%)Ceiling: 11 of 11 (100.0%)

Level 5

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-WALTON-BGP-HOSTNAME-CAPABILITY Hostname Capability for BGP no rowsCeiling: no rows 0 of 1 (0.0%)Ceiling: 1 of 1 (100.0%)

Level 6

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-ABRAITIS-BGP-VERSION-CAPABILITY Software Version Capability for BGP 11 of 11 (100.0%)Ceiling: 11 of 11 (100.0%) 0 of 4 (0.0%)Ceiling: 4 of 4 (100.0%)

Level 7

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-ABRAITIS-IDR-ADDPATH-PATHS-LIMIT Scalability Considerations for ADD-PATH with PATHS-LIMIT 1 of 4 (25.0%)Ceiling: 4 of 4 (100.0%) 3 of 3 (100.0%)Ceiling: 3 of 3 (100.0%)

Level 8

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-IETF-BESS-MUP-SAFI BGP Extensions for the Mobile User Plane (MUP) SAFI 17 of 47 (36.2%)Ceiling: 47 of 47 (100.0%) 0 of 20 (0.0%)Ceiling: 20 of 20 (100.0%)

Level 9

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-IETF-IDR-LINKLOCAL-CAPABILITY Link-Local Next Hop Capability for BGP 13 of 15 (86.7%)Ceiling: 14 of 15 (93.3%); excluded: Not applicable (classification can be revisited): 1 of 15 (6.7%) 0 of 12 (0.0%)Ceiling: 12 of 12 (100.0%)
DRAFT-IETF-SIDROPS-ASPA-VERIFICATION BGP AS_PATH Verification Based on Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) Objects 6 of 8 (75.0%)Ceiling: 8 of 8 (100.0%) 0 of 10 (0.0%)Ceiling: 10 of 10 (100.0%)

Level 10

RFCTitleMandatoryOptional
DRAFT-IETF-IDR-BGP-BFD-STRICT-MODE BGP BFD Strict-Mode 4 of 4 (100.0%)Ceiling: 4 of 4 (100.0%) no rowsCeiling: no rows