Future

RFC 2867 - RADIUS Accounting Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 2867, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is not enrolled.

Overview

Positive

what Ze has

Tested both ways0.0%0 of 1 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 1 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 1 gated MUSTs

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

Partial proof; remaining gap0.0%0 of 1 gated MUSTs

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

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

MUSTs declared1of 17 this summary declares

MUST-level requirements this summary DECLARES. The gate holds none of them, because this RFC is not enrolled (out-of-scope), so every share below reads what the summary records rather than what the gate enforces

Out of scope0of 1 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 applicable0.0%0 of 1 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 1 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 1 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

Linux cannot do this0.0%0 of 1 gated MUSTs

Linux cannot provide the primitive this requirement needs. The obligation still binds Ze and remains unmet; it stays in every denominator and earns no proof credit

Negative

what Ze owes

No test at all100.0%1 of 1 gated MUSTs

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

The 9 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 1 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
MUSTs declared	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	bad	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
Linux cannot do this	neutral	neutral at every value: an evidenced platform limit is neither a proof nor a scope exemption
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	Future
Enrolment	Not enrolled (out-of-scope)
Requirements	17
Gated MUST-level	1
Not applicable, so out of scope	0
Declared gaps	0
Declared gaps a test demonstrates	0
Gated with no test	1
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	0
Tagged units	0
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc2867.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc2867.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc2867.txt`

Enrolment

Not enrolled (out-of-scope, the requirements ARE extracted and the owner decided not to offer the feature for now, so the absence is a scope decision rather than a conformance gap): OUT OF SCOPE as a document by owner decision, 2026-10-26: the owner rule committed in 1e7a9dbc34 (ai/META-DECISIONS.md, Goal and scope) counts an RFC a profile lists as optional only once Thomas brings it into scope, and this summary's `Optional use cases` row lists this RFC in the optional tier of the lns profile. The extraction is COMPLETE: the source text is at rfc/full/rfc2867.txt, every capitalised MUST-level sentence is a row of this summary or an exclusion in rfc/extraction/rfc2867.json (walked 2026-10-26), and none is gated. Ze's accounting records carry no tunnel attributes and no tunnel Acct-Status-Type values (internal/component/l2tp/plugins/authradius/acct.go buildAcctPacket).

What the public ledger says

Status: Future

What the ledger says is covered:

None. Ze sends Start, Stop and Interim-Update for subscriber sessions only (RFC 2866), with no Tunnel-Start, Tunnel-Stop, Tunnel-Reject, Tunnel-Link-Start, Tunnel-Link-Stop or Tunnel-Link-Reject record.

What the ledger says remains:

The six tunnel Acct-Status-Type values, Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) and Acct-Tunnel-Packets-Lost (86). Out of scope by owner decision, 2026-10-26.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	0	one part of the gated population
Annotated (including scoped evidence)	0	one part of the gated population
One polarity only	0	one part of the gated population
No test and no annotation	1	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	1	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

No test and no annotation (1): RFC2867-5-1

Attainable ceiling

Mandatory ceiling: 1 of 1 (100.0%). Optional ceiling: 16 of 16 (100.0%). Every RFC shown with measured rows can reach 100% under current classifications. Lowest mandatory ceiling: rfc2867 1 of 1 (100.0%). Lowest optional ceiling: rfc2867 16 of 16 (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.

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC2867-5-1`	0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet. 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in packet. 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in packet. (§5)
	MUST NOT	5	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-2-1`	When implementing RADIUS accounting for L2TP/PPTP tunneling, the Call-Serial-Number SHOULD be used in the Acct-Tunnel-Connection attribute. (§2)
	SHOULD	2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-2-2`	In PPTP the combination of IP Address and Call-Serial-Number SHOULD be unique, but this is not required. (§2)
	SHOULD	2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.1-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Event-Timestamp (55) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) (§3.1)
	SHOULD	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.2-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Acct-Input-Octets (42) Acct-Output-Octets (43) Acct-Session-Id (44) Acct-Session-Time (46) Acct-Input-Packets (47) Acct-Output-Packets (48) Acct-Terminate-Cause (49) Acct-Multi-Session-Id (51) Event-Timestamp (55) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) Acct-Tunnel-Packets-Lost (86) (§3.2)
	SHOULD	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.3-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Acct-Terminate-Cause (49) Event-Timestamp (55) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) (§3.3)
	SHOULD	3.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.4-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) NAS-Port (5) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Event-Timestamp (55) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) (§3.4)
	SHOULD	3.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.5-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) NAS-Port (5) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Acct-Input-Octets (42) Acct-Output-Octets (43) Acct-Session-Id (44) Acct-Session-Time (46) Acct-Input-Packets (47) Acct-Output-Packets (48) Acct-Terminate-Cause (49) Acct-Multi-Session-Id (51) Event-Timestamp (55) NAS-Port-Type (61) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) Acct-Tunnel-Packets-Lost (86) (§3.5)
	SHOULD	3.5	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.6-2`	If this value is used, the following attributes SHOULD also be included in the Accounting-Request packet: User-Name (1) NAS-IP-Address (4) Acct-Delay-Time (41) Acct-Terminate-Cause (49) Event-Timestamp (55) Tunnel-Type (64) Tunnel-Medium-Type (65) Tunnel-Client-Endpoint (66) Tunnel-Server-Endpoint (67) Acct-Tunnel-Connection (68) (§3.6)
	SHOULD	3.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-4.1-1`	It SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain an Acct-Status-Type attribute having the value Start, Stop or any of the values described above. (§4.1)
	SHOULD	4.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-4.2-1`	It SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain an Acct-Status-Type attribute having the value Tunnel-Link-Stop. (§4.2)
	SHOULD	4.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.1-1`	Value 9 Description This value MAY be used to mark the establishment of a tunnel with another node. (§3.1)
	MAY	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.2-1`	Value 10 Description This value MAY be used to mark the destruction of a tunnel to or from another node. (§3.2)
	MAY	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.3-1`	Value 11 Description This value MAY be used to mark the rejection of the establishment of a tunnel with another node. (§3.3)
	MAY	3.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.4-1`	Value 12 Description This value MAY be used to mark the creation of a tunnel link. (§3.4)
	MAY	3.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.5-1`	Value 13 Description This value MAY be used to mark the destruction of a tunnel link. (§3.5)
	MAY	3.5	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2867-3.6-1`	Value 14 Description This value MAY be used to mark the rejection of the establishment of a new link in an existing tunnel. (§3.6)
	MAY	3.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC2867-5-1` 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet. 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in packet. 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in packet. (§5)	no test	no test carries this requirement id

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.

`RFC2867-5-1`

0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet. 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in packet. 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in packet. (§5)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

No test carries RFC2867-5-1, so no unit is bound to it.

Extraction sign-off

Field	Value
Reviewer	claude
Signed off	2026-10-26
Register	rfc2119
Source	rfc/full/rfc2867.txt
Source fingerprint	d0d090f6ce3be9a5
Record	rfc/extraction/rfc2867.json
Mapped sentences	1
Declined as scope	0
Relocated to a spec, which Ze OWES	0
Unclassified	0

Sections

Section	Name	Sites	Disposition	Reason
`front`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`1`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`2`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.1`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.2`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.3`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.4`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.5`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`3.6`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`4`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`4.1`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`4.2`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`5`	not stated	1	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`6`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`7`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`8`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`9`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.
`10`	not stated	0	walked	Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site.

Excluded sentences

The walk over RFC 2867 declined no sentence: every site it found is mapped to a requirement.

Superseded

No document obsoletes RFC 2867, so its obligations are stated where they were written.