No row in the public ledger

RFC 2782 - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 2782, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is enrolled and gated by ./le rfc check.

Overview

Positive

what Ze has

Tested both ways0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids

One polarity plus reason0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

the requirement admits no counter-case, so one polarity plus a recorded reason is the whole proof available for it

One polarity, unexcused0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

one direction is tested, the other is neither tested nor excused, and nothing states which

Partial proof; remaining gap0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

scoped tests exist; the remaining obligation is unmet or unproven, with zero whole-requirement credit

No test at all0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 0 tagged units

a red was observed once under a recorded procedure, and the unit, the claim and the producer it rested on still hash to what was recorded. The break is not re-run. A test pair is not a proof until one has been observed

Neutral

measures that are neither good news nor bad

Gated MUSTs7of 14 this summary declares

MUST-level requirements the gate HOLDS. A population, not a result: the shares beside it are what says how Ze stands

Out of scope7of 7 gated MUSTs

an obligation that does not bind Ze. A {not-applicable} annotation says it never bound; a {feature-declined} annotation says its condition is an optional feature Ze does not offer, and quotes the RFC sentence that makes it optional. Scope, not coverage: it stays in the denominator every share on this page is taken over

Not applicable100.0%7 of 7 gated MUSTs

a {not-applicable} annotation says the obligation does not bind Ze, so no test is owed for it. It stays in the denominator every share here is taken over

Met below Ze0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

a {lower-layer} annotation says a layer under Ze performs the behavior, on state Ze installs into that layer, and names the producer that installs it. The obligation binds Ze and is met; Ze proves none of it, because its own boundary carries no value the behavior reads

Optional feature declined0.0%0 of 7 gated MUSTs

a {feature-declined} annotation says the obligation is conditional on a feature the RFC makes optional and Ze does not offer, and it quotes the sentence that makes it optional. The condition is false, so nothing is owed and nothing is missing. It stays in the denominator every share here is taken over

The 8 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 7 gated MUSTs: they add to 100%. Proven by a recorded break is a share of TAGGED UNITS, a different population, so it is not one of them.

How to read the colors

A color names what the measure MEANS, not how well Ze scores on it. Green is a good outcome at any value, red is a bad one, and neither a population nor a scope count is an outcome, so both take no color. The number under the label is what says how far Ze has got.

Card	Tone here	Why that color
Gated MUSTs	neutral	no color: a population is a scale, and a larger one is neither good news nor bad. It is the accounting total
Out of scope	neutral	no color: an obligation that never bound Ze is neither an achievement nor a failure, and counting it either way would be a claim
Tested both ways	ok	green at every value: a test pair is the outcome this gate exists to produce, and the share under the label is what says how far Ze has got
One polarity plus reason	ok	green at every value: where no counter-case exists, one polarity IS the complete answer, and a recorded reason is what the gate demands beside it
One polarity, unexcused	ok	green at zero, RED above it: half a proof with no reason for the other half
Partial proof; remaining gap	ok	green at zero, RED above it: a tested clause cannot prove the whole requirement
No test at all	ok	green at zero, RED above it: a binding obligation nothing exercises is a claim with nothing behind it, whether or not a reason is stated
Not applicable	neutral	no color: an obligation that never bound Ze is neither an achievement nor a failure, and counting it either way would be a claim
Met below Ze	neutral	no color: an obligation met below Ze is neither a test Ze wrote nor work Ze owes, and the two green shares above are what says how much Ze proves itself
Optional feature declined	neutral	no color: an obligation whose condition Ze never meets is neither an achievement nor a failure. The absent FEATURE is disclosed on the RFC's own status row, as an implementation gap a later scope decision can revisit
Proven by a recorded break	ok	green at every value: an observed break is the outcome the discrimination gate exists to produce. The denominator is TAGGED UNITS, not obligations, so this share is not one of the parts above
Audit verdicts	warn	RED on the first weak, wrong or unimplemented verdict, amber while a verdict is no longer current or a gated MUST is unjudged, green when every one is judged sound and current

At a glance

Field	Value
Public status	No row in the public ledger
Enrolment	Enrolled
Requirements	14
Gated MUST-level	7
Not applicable, so out of scope	7
Declared gaps	0
Declared gaps a test demonstrates	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	0
Tagged units	0
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc2782.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc2782.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc2782.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: DNS SRV resource records: seven MUST-level requirements, all {not-applicable}. ze serves SRV records verbatim as an authoritative server (internal/plugins/geodns: config.go parseSRV, server.go recordRR emitting dns.SRV) and implements no SRV-cognizant connecting client that performs priority/weight selection or Additional-section address resolution (internal/component/resolve/dns surfaces target:port strings without contacting or ordering; no production code resolves TypeSRV). The client-selection MUSTs (Priority-1, Notes-2 parse-all-RRs, Notes-3 Additional-section lookup), the protocol-specification-author MUSTs (Applicability-1 Service token, Applicability-2 security considerations), and the Target MUSTs (Target-1 address records present, Target-2 not a CNAME) all govern roles or data ze does not own.

What the public ledger says

No row in the public ledger, so its summary declares `| Support | - |` and docs/features/rfc-status.md carries no row for RFC 2782.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	0	one part of the gated population
Annotated (including scoped evidence)	7	one part of the gated population
One polarity only	0	one part of the gated population
No test and no annotation	0	one part of the gated population
Partial proof; remaining gap (subset of annotated; zero whole-requirement credit)	0	an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in
Evidence that runs nightly only	0	an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in
Derived from other rows	0	outside the gated population: each asserts nothing and derives its state from the rows it names, which the parts above already count
Gated MUST-level requirements	7	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Annotated (including scoped evidence) (7): RFC2782-Applicability-1, RFC2782-Applicability-2, RFC2782-Priority-1, RFC2782-Target-1, RFC2782-Target-2, RFC2782-Notes-2, RFC2782-Notes-3

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC2782-Applicability-1`	Such specification MUST define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV record as described below. (§Applicability)
	MUST	Applicability	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this MUST binds the author of a protocol specification that adopts SRV to define the Service token; ze authors no such specification -- the _Service._Proto owner name is operator config data served verbatim (internal/plugins/geodns/config.go:319, server.go:111), not a name ze defines
`RFC2782-Applicability-2`	Such specification MUST define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV record as described below. It also MUST include security considerations. (§Applicability)
	MUST	Applicability	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this is a security-considerations obligation on the author of an SRV-adopting protocol specification; ze publishes no such specification
`RFC2782-Priority-1`	A client MUST attempt to contact the target host with the lowest-numbered priority it can reach (§Priority)
	MUST	Priority	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze implements no SRV-cognizant connecting client; geodns is authoritative and serves SRV verbatim without selection (internal/plugins/geodns/server.go:111), and internal/component/resolve/dns returns target:port strings without contacting or ordering by priority (resolver.go:321) -- no production code resolves TypeSRV
`RFC2782-Target-1`	There MUST be one or more address records for this name (§Target)
	MUST	Target	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: an SRV Target is an arbitrary FQDN that commonly lives outside any zone geodns is authoritative for, so geodns cannot require in-zone address records for it (internal/plugins/geodns/config.go:319); the address-record obligation belongs to the target's own authoritative zone
`RFC2782-Target-2`	There MUST be one or more address records for this name, the name MUST NOT be an alias (in the sense of RFC 1034 or RFC 2181). (§Target)
	MUST NOT	Target	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: geodns serves no CNAME record type (internal/plugins/geodns/record.go:10-14), so a geodns SRV Target can never resolve to a geodns-served alias; whether an external target name is a CNAME is outside geodns's authority
`RFC2782-Notes-2`	A client MUST parse all of the RR's in the reply. (§Notes)
	MUST	Notes	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this parse-all-RRs MUST governs the SRV-cognizant client that locates and connects to servers; ze has no such client. internal/component/resolve/dns iterates every answer RR (resolver.go:299) but is a generic stub resolver surfacing data, not a connecting SRV client, and no production code drives it with TypeSRV
`RFC2782-Notes-3`	If the Additional Data section doesn't contain address records for all the SRV RR's and the client may want to connect to the target host(s) involved, the client MUST look up the address record(s). (§Notes)
	MUST	Notes	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: Additional-section address follow-up before connecting is a connecting-SRV-client obligation ze does not implement; internal/component/resolve/dns never reads the Additional section and never connects (resolver.go:299), and geodns as a server emits no target address glue for SRV answers (server.go:182-188)
`RFC2782-Applicability-3`	Service SRV records SHOULD NOT be used in the absence of such specification. (§Applicability)
	SHOULD NOT	Applicability	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Priority-2`	target hosts with the same priority SHOULD be tried in an order defined by the weight field. (§Priority)
	SHOULD	Priority	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Weight-1`	Larger weights SHOULD be given a proportionately higher probability of being selected (§Weight)
	SHOULD	Weight	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Weight-2`	Domain administrators SHOULD use Weight 0 when there isn't any server selection to do, to make the RR easier to read for humans (less noisy). (§Weight)
	SHOULD	Weight	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Weight-3`	The following algorithm SHOULD be used to order the SRV RRs of the same priority (§Weight)
	SHOULD	Weight	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Usage-1`	A SRV-cognizant client SHOULD use this procedure to locate a list of servers and connect to the preferred one (§Usage)
	SHOULD	Usage	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2782-Notes-1`	Port numbers SHOULD NOT be used in place of the symbolic service or protocol names (§Notes)
	SHOULD NOT	Notes	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC2782-Applicability-1` Such specification MUST define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV record as described below. (§Applicability)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this MUST binds the author of a protocol specification that adopts SRV to define the Service token; ze authors no such specification -- the _Service._Proto owner name is operator config data served verbatim (internal/plugins/geodns/config.go:319, server.go:111), not a name ze defines
`RFC2782-Applicability-2` Such specification MUST define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV record as described below. It also MUST include security considerations. (§Applicability)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this is a security-considerations obligation on the author of an SRV-adopting protocol specification; ze publishes no such specification
`RFC2782-Priority-1` A client MUST attempt to contact the target host with the lowest-numbered priority it can reach (§Priority)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze implements no SRV-cognizant connecting client; geodns is authoritative and serves SRV verbatim without selection (internal/plugins/geodns/server.go:111), and internal/component/resolve/dns returns target:port strings without contacting or ordering by priority (resolver.go:321) -- no production code resolves TypeSRV
`RFC2782-Target-1` There MUST be one or more address records for this name (§Target)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: an SRV Target is an arbitrary FQDN that commonly lives outside any zone geodns is authoritative for, so geodns cannot require in-zone address records for it (internal/plugins/geodns/config.go:319); the address-record obligation belongs to the target's own authoritative zone
`RFC2782-Target-2` There MUST be one or more address records for this name, the name MUST NOT be an alias (in the sense of RFC 1034 or RFC 2181). (§Target)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: geodns serves no CNAME record type (internal/plugins/geodns/record.go:10-14), so a geodns SRV Target can never resolve to a geodns-served alias; whether an external target name is a CNAME is outside geodns's authority
`RFC2782-Notes-2` A client MUST parse all of the RR's in the reply. (§Notes)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this parse-all-RRs MUST governs the SRV-cognizant client that locates and connects to servers; ze has no such client. internal/component/resolve/dns iterates every answer RR (resolver.go:299) but is a generic stub resolver surfacing data, not a connecting SRV client, and no production code drives it with TypeSRV
`RFC2782-Notes-3` If the Additional Data section doesn't contain address records for all the SRV RR's and the client may want to connect to the target host(s) involved, the client MUST look up the address record(s). (§Notes)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Additional-section address follow-up before connecting is a connecting-SRV-client obligation ze does not implement; internal/component/resolve/dns never reads the Additional section and never connects (resolver.go:299), and geodns as a server emits no target address glue for SRV answers (server.go:182-188)

Proof state

A tagged unit reads unproven where no discrimination record exists for it: nothing in this tree has been observed to break it, so the claim its tag makes is unproven.

`RFC2782-Applicability-1`

Such specification MUST define the symbolic name to be used in the Service field of the SRV record as described below. (§Applicability)