a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids
Future
RFC 2868 - RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 2868, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is not enrolled.
Overview
Positive
what Ze has
the requirement admits no counter-case, so one polarity plus a recorded reason is the whole proof available for it
one direction is tested, the other is neither tested nor excused, and nothing states which
scoped tests exist; the remaining obligation is unmet or unproven, with zero whole-requirement credit
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why
The 9 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 18 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 | 61 |
| Gated MUST-level | 18 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 0 |
| Declared gaps | 0 |
| Declared gaps a test demonstrates | 0 |
| Gated with no test | 18 |
| Nightly-only evidence | 0 |
| Test tags | 0 |
| Tagged units | 0 |
| Recorded audit verdicts | 0 |
| Discrimination records | 0 |
| Summary | rfc/short/rfc2868.md |
| Requirement shard | rfc/requirements/rfc2868.md |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc2868.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/rfc2868.txt, every capitalised MUST-level sentence is a row of this summary or an exclusion in rfc/extraction/rfc2868.json (walked 2026-10-26), and none is gated. Ze's radius dictionary holds none of the tunnel attributes (types 64 to 67, 69, 81, 82, 83, 90, 91; internal/component/radius/dict.go), and the LNS reads none from an Access-Accept.
What the public ledger says
Status: Future
What the ledger says is covered:
None. Tunnel attributes in an Access-Accept are ignored.What the ledger says remains:
Tunnel-Type, Tunnel-Medium-Type, the endpoint, password, private group, assignment, preference and auth-id attributes. 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 | 18 | 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 | 18 | every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above |
No test and no annotation (18): RFC2868-3.1-1, RFC2868-3.1-2, RFC2868-3.2-1, RFC2868-3.3-1, RFC2868-3.3-2, RFC2868-3.4-1, RFC2868-3.4-2, RFC2868-3.4-3, RFC2868-3.5-1, RFC2868-3.5-2, RFC2868-3.5-3, RFC2868-3.5-4, RFC2868-3.7-1, RFC2868-3.8-1, RFC2868-3.9-1, RFC2868-3.10-1, RFC2868-4-1, RFC2868-5-1
Attainable ceiling
Mandatory ceiling: 18 of 18 (100.0%). Optional ceiling: 43 of 43 (100.0%). Every RFC shown with measured rows can reach 100% under current classifications. Lowest mandatory ceiling: rfc2868 18 of 18 (100.0%). Lowest optional ceiling: rfc2868 43 of 43 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
RFC2868-3.1-1 | A tunnel initiator is not required to implement any of these tunnel types; if a tunnel initiator receives an Access-Accept packet which contains only unknown or unsupported Tunnel-Types, the tunnel initiator MUST behave as though an Access-Reject had been received instead. (§3.1) | ||
| MUST | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-2 | If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.1) | ||
| MUST | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.2-1 | If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.2) | ||
| MUST | 3.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-1 | Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.3) | ||
| MUST | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-2 | Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.3) | ||
| MUST | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-1 | The Tunnel-Server-Endpoint Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if the initiation of a tunnel is desired. (§3.4) | ||
| MUST | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-2 | Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.4) | ||
| MUST | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-3 | Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.4) | ||
| MUST | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.5-1 | The most significant bit (leftmost) of the Salt field MUST be set (1). (§3.5) | ||
| MUST | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.5-2 | The contents of each Salt field in a given Access-Accept packet MUST be unique. (§3.5) | ||
| MUST | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.5-3 | If the combined length (in octets) of the unencrypted Data-Length and Password sub-fields is not an even multiple of 16, then the Padding sub-field MUST be present. (§3.5) | ||
| MUST | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.5-4 | The String field MUST be encrypted as follows, prior to transmission: (§3.5) | ||
| MUST | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-1 | A tunnel initiator MUST NOT assign a session for which a Tunnel-Assignment-ID Attribute was not specified to a named tunnel (i.e. one that was initiated by a session specifying this attribute). (§3.7) | ||
| MUST NOT | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-1 | If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.8) | ||
| MUST | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.9-1 | The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.9) | ||
| MUST | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.10-1 | The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.10) | ||
| MUST | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-4-1 | 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. (§4) | ||
| MUST NOT | 4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-5-1 | In particular, end-users SHOULD NOT rely upon the security of the tunnel to protect their data; encryption and/or integrity protection of tunneled traffic MUST NOT be considered as a replacement for end-to-end security. (§5) | ||
| MUST NOT | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3-1 | In this case, the attributes to be applied to any given tunnel SHOULD all contain the same value in their respective Tag fields; otherwise, the Tag field SHOULD NOT be used. (§3) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3-2 | If the RADIUS server returns attributes describing multiple tunnels then the tunnels SHOULD be interpreted by the tunnel initiator as alternatives and the server SHOULD include an instance of the Tunnel-Preference Attribute in the set of Attributes pertaining to each alternative tunnel. (§3) | ||
| SHOULD | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3-3 | Similarly, if the RADIUS client includes multiple sets of tunnel Attributes in an Access-Request packet, all the Attributes pertaining to a given tunnel SHOULD contain the same value in their respective Tag fields and each set SHOULD include an appropriately valued instance of the Tunnel-Preference Attribute. (§3) | ||
| SHOULD | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-4 | If the Tunnel-Type Attribute is present in an Access-Request packet sent from a tunnel initiator, it SHOULD be taken as a hint to the RADIUS server as to the tunnelling protocols supported by the tunnel end-point; the RADIUS server MAY ignore the hint, however. (§3.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-5 | If the Tunnel-Type Attribute is present in an Access-Request packet sent from a tunnel terminator, it SHOULD be taken to signify the tunnelling protocol in use. (§3.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-7 | If a tunnel terminator receives an Access-Accept packet which contains one or more Tunnel-Type Attributes, none of which represent the tunneling protocol in use, the tunnel terminator SHOULD behave as though an Access-Reject had been received instead. (§3.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.2-2 | It MAY be included in both Access-Request and Access-Accept packets; if it is present in an Access-Request packet, it SHOULD be taken as a hint to the RADIUS server as to the tunnel media supported by the tunnel end- point. (§3.2) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-4 | This Attribute SHOULD be included in Accounting- Request packets which contain Acct-Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop, in which case it indicates the address from which the tunnel was initiated. (§3.3) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-5 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.3) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-6 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.3) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-4 | It SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain Acct-Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop and which pertain to a tunneled session. (§3.4) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-5 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.4) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.4-6 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.4) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.5-5 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains; otherwise, the Tag field SHOULD be ignored. (§3.5) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.6-1 | The Tunnel-Private-Group-ID Attribute MAY be included in the Access-Request packet if the tunnel initiator can pre- determine the group resulting from a particular connection and SHOULD be included in the Access-Accept packet if this tunnel session is to be treated as belonging to a particular private group. (§3.6) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.6-2 | It SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain Acct-Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop and which pertain to a tunneled session. (§3.6) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.6-3 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.6) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.6-4 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.6) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-4 | This attribute SHOULD also be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain Acct- Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop and which pertain to a tunneled session. (§3.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-5 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-6 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-2 | Description If more than one set of tunneling attributes is returned by the RADIUS server to the tunnel initiator, this Attribute SHOULD be included in each set to indicate the relative preference assigned to each tunnel. (§3.8) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-3 | If, however, it supports both tunnel protocols, it SHOULD use the value of the Tunnel-Preference Attribute to decide which tunnel should be started. (§3.8) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-4 | The tunnel having the numerically lowest value in the Value field of this Attribute SHOULD be given the highest preference. (§3.8) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-6 | In this case, the tunnel initiator SHOULD use locally configured metrics to decide which set of attributes to use. (§3.8) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.9-2 | This Attribute SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain Acct-Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop and which pertain to a tunneled session. (§3.9) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.9-3 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.9) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.9-4 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.9) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.9-5 | The authentication name SHOULD be represented in the UTF-8 charset. (§3.9) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.10-2 | This Attribute SHOULD be included in Accounting-Request packets which contain Acct-Status-Type attributes with values of either Start or Stop and which pertain to a tunneled session. (§3.10) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.10-3 | If the value of the Tag field is greater than 0x00 and less than or equal to 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as indicating which tunnel (of several alternatives) this attribute pertains. (§3.10) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.10-4 | If the Tag field is greater than 0x1F, it SHOULD be interpreted as the first byte of the following String field. (§3.10) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.10-5 | The authentication name SHOULD be represented in the UTF-8 charset. (§3.10) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-5-2 | For this reason, the Tunnel- Password Attribute SHOULD NOT be included in Access-Accept packets which may pass through (relatively) untrusted RADIUS proxies. (§5) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-5-3 | In addition, the Tunnel-Password Attribute SHOULD NOT be returned to an unauthenticated client; if the corresponding Access-Request packet did not contain a verified instance of the Signature Attribute [15], the Access-Accept packet SHOULD NOT contain an instance of the Tunnel-Password Attribute. (§5) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-3 | It MAY be included in Access-Request, Access-Accept and Accounting-Request packets. (§3.1) | ||
| MAY | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.1-6 | In this case, if the RADIUS server determines that the use of the communicated protocol is not authorized, it MAY return an Access-Reject packet. (§3.1) | ||
| MAY | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.2-3 | The RADIUS server MAY ignore the hint, however. (§3.2) | ||
| MAY | 3.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.3-3 | It MAY be included in both Access-Request and Access- Accept packets to indicate the address from which a new tunnel is to be initiated. (§3.3) | ||
| MAY | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-2 | This attribute MAY be included in the Access-Accept. (§3.7) | ||
| MAY | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.7-3 | The tunnel initiator receiving this attribute MAY choose to ignore it and assign the session to an arbitrary multiplexed or non-multiplexed tunnel between the desired endpoints. (§3.7) | ||
| MAY | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-5 | The values assigned to two or more instances of the Tunnel-Preference Attribute within a given Access-Accept packet MAY be identical. (§3.8) | ||
| MAY | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC2868-3.8-7 | This Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the server) in Access-Request packets, but the RADIUS server is not required to honor this hint. (§3.8) | ||
| MAY | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
Gaps and untested MUSTs
| Requirement | State | Reason |
|---|---|---|
RFC2868-3.1-1 A tunnel initiator is not required to implement any of these tunnel types; if a tunnel initiator receives an Access-Accept packet which contains only unknown or unsupported Tunnel-Types, the tunnel initiator MUST behave as though an Access-Reject had been received instead. (§3.1) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.1-2 If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.1) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.2-1 If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.3-1 Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.3-2 Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.4-1 The Tunnel-Server-Endpoint Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if the initiation of a tunnel is desired. (§3.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.4-2 Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.4-3 Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.5-1 The most significant bit (leftmost) of the Salt field MUST be set (1). (§3.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.5-2 The contents of each Salt field in a given Access-Accept packet MUST be unique. (§3.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.5-3 If the combined length (in octets) of the unencrypted Data-Length and Password sub-fields is not an even multiple of 16, then the Padding sub-field MUST be present. (§3.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.5-4 The String field MUST be encrypted as follows, prior to transmission: (§3.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.7-1 A tunnel initiator MUST NOT assign a session for which a Tunnel-Assignment-ID Attribute was not specified to a named tunnel (i.e. one that was initiated by a session specifying this attribute). (§3.7) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.8-1 If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.8) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.9-1 The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.9) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-3.10-1 The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.10) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-4-1 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. (§4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC2868-5-1 In particular, end-users SHOULD NOT rely upon the security of the tunnel to protect their data; encryption and/or integrity protection of tunneled traffic MUST NOT be considered as a replacement for end-to-end security. (§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.
RFC2868-3.1-1
A tunnel initiator is not required to implement any of these tunnel types; if a tunnel initiator receives an Access-Accept packet which contains only unknown or unsupported Tunnel-Types, the tunnel initiator MUST behave as though an Access-Reject had been received instead. (§3.1)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.1-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.1-2
If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.1)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.1-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.2-1
If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.3-1
Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.3-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.3-2
Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.3-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.4-1
The Tunnel-Server-Endpoint Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if the initiation of a tunnel is desired. (§3.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.4-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.4-2
Conformant implementations MUST support the dotted-decimal format and SHOULD support the FQDN format for IP addresses. (§3.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.4-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.4-3
Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and SHOULD support both the alternate text form and the FQDN format for IPv6 addresses. (§3.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.4-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.5-1
The most significant bit (leftmost) of the Salt field MUST be set (1). (§3.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.5-2
The contents of each Salt field in a given Access-Accept packet MUST be unique. (§3.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.5-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.5-3
If the combined length (in octets) of the unencrypted Data-Length and Password sub-fields is not an even multiple of 16, then the Padding sub-field MUST be present. (§3.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.5-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.5-4
The String field MUST be encrypted as follows, prior to transmission: (§3.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.5-4, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.7-1
A tunnel initiator MUST NOT assign a session for which a Tunnel-Assignment-ID Attribute was not specified to a named tunnel (i.e. one that was initiated by a session specifying this attribute). (§3.7)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.7-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.8-1
If the Tag field is unused, it MUST be zero (0x00). (§3.8)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.8-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.9-1
The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.9)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.9-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-3.10-1
The Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID Attribute MAY be included (as a hint to the RADIUS server) in the Access-Request packet, and MUST be included in the Access-Accept packet if an authentication name other than the default is desired. (§3.10)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-3.10-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-4-1
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. (§4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-4-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC2868-5-1
In particular, end-users SHOULD NOT rely upon the security of the tunnel to protect their data; encryption and/or integrity protection of tunneled traffic MUST NOT be considered as a replacement for end-to-end security. (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC2868-5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
Extraction sign-off
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewer | claude |
| Signed off | 2026-10-26 |
| Register | rfc2119 |
| Source | rfc/full/rfc2868.txt |
| Source fingerprint | b63be609d86aa086 |
| Record | rfc/extraction/rfc2868.json |
| Mapped sentences | 18 |
| 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 | 2 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.2 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.3 |
not stated | 2 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.4 |
not stated | 3 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.5 |
not stated | 4 | 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. |
3.7 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.8 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.9 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
3.10 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
4 |
not stated | 1 | 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. |
6.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Walked against the source text; every capitalised keyword sentence is captured in the checklist or decided at its site. |
6.2 |
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. |
11 |
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 2868 declined no sentence: every site it found is mapped to a requirement.
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 2868, so its obligations are stated where they were written.