a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids
No row in the public ledger
RFC 3022 - Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 3022, 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
no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why
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
0 weak, wrong or unimplemented, 0 no longer current. Each is named below under its own requirement id
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 (non-normative), 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
No card above is a share of a population, so there is nothing to add up.
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 | 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 |
| 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 | ok | 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 | Not enrolled (non-normative) |
| Requirements | 0 |
| Gated MUST-level | 0 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 0 |
| 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/rfc3022.md |
| Requirement shard | no requirement declared, so no shard is generated |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc3022.txt |
Enrolment
Not enrolled (non-normative, the document imposes no MUST-level obligation on an implementation, so there is nothing to gate): Traditional IP Network Address Translator, published with IETF category Informational. The text carries no RFC 2119 key-words section and a capitalised MUST / MUST NOT / SHALL / SHALL NOT / REQUIRED / SHOULD / MAY scan over rfc/full/rfc3022.txt finds zero keywords. Its lowercase "must" sentences describe how the Basic NAT and NAPT operations it defines rewrite a packet; the normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 (UDP) and RFC 5382 (TCP), which carry their own summaries.
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 3022.
Coverage
RFC 3022 declares no MUST-level requirement, so the gate counts nothing here.
Attainable ceiling
Mandatory ceiling: no rows. Optional ceiling: no rows. 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
RFC 3022 declares no requirement, so this summary generates no shard.
Gaps and untested MUSTs
RFC 3022 declares no gap, and every gated MUST it carries has a test bound to it.
Proof state
RFC 3022 carries no gated, tagged or audited requirement, so there is no proof state to state.
Extraction sign-off
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewer | claude |
| Signed off | 2026-10-26 |
| Register | prose |
| Source | rfc/full/rfc3022.txt |
| Source fingerprint | bb959214751a52fb |
| Record | rfc/extraction/rfc3022.json |
| Mapped sentences | 0 |
| Declined as scope | 18 |
| Relocated to a spec, which Ze OWES | 0 |
| Unclassified | 0 |
Sections
| Section | Name | Sites | Disposition | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
front |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1 |
not stated | 2 | walked | not stated |
2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.2 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
3.0 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
3.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
3.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
3.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
4.0 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
4.1 |
not stated | 7 | walked | not stated |
4.2 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
4.3 |
not stated | 2 | walked | not stated |
4.4 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
4.5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
4.6 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5.1 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
5.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5.4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
6.0 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
6.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
6.2 |
not stated | 2 | walked | not stated |
6.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
7.0 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
8.0 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
Excluded sentences
| Site | Excluded kind | Reason | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|
1:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Whenever external topology changes with time, address assignment for nodes within the local domain must also change to reflect the external changes. |
1:2 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Applications requiring ALG intervention must not have their payload encoded, as doing that would effectively disables the ALG, unless the ALG has the key to decrypt the payload. |
2.2:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | In this setup, only TCP/UDP sessions are allowed and must originate from the local network. |
4.1:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | In Basic NAT model, the IP header of every packet must be modified. |
4.1:2 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | For TCP ([TCP]) and UDP ([UDP]) sessions, modifications must include update of checksum in the TCP/UDP headers. |
4.1:3 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | As for ICMP Query packets ([ICMP]), no further changes in ICMP header are required as the checksum in ICMP header does not cover IP addresses. |
4.1:4 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | For TCP/UDP sessions, modifications must be extended to include translation of TU port (source TU port for outbound packets and destination TU port for inbound packets) in the TCP/UDP header. |
4.1:5 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | ICMP header in ICMP Query packets must also be modified to replace the query ID and ICMP header checksum. |
4.1:6 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Private host query ID must be translated into assigned ID on the outbound and the exact reverse on the inbound. |
4.1:7 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | ICMP header checksum must be corrected to account for Query ID translation. |
4.2:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | The algorithm below is applicable only for even offsets (i.e., optr below must be at an even offset from start of header) and even lengths (i.e., olen and nlen below must be even). |
4.3:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | In order for NAT to be transparent to end-host, the IP address of the IP header embedded within the payload of ICMP-Error message must be modified, the checksum field of the embedded IP header must be modified, and lastly, the ICMP header checksum must also be modified to reflect changes to payload. |
4.3:2 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Lastly, the IP header of the ICMP packet must also be modified. |
4.4:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | For NAPT setup, however, the translations must be extended to include the TCP port octets (in ASCII) following the address octets. |
5.1:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Any given address must either be a private address or a global address. |
6.2:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | NAT must be enabled only on border routers of a stub domain. |
6.2:2 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
RFC 3022 is Informational and declares no RFC 2119 conventions; this lowercase 'must' describes how the Basic NAT or NAPT operation the document defines rewrites a packet or where it is deployed. The normative NAT behavioral requirements are stated by RFC 4787 and RFC 5382. | Responding to ARP requests for the NAT mapped global addresses with its own MAC address is a must in such a situation with Basic NAT setup. |
8.0:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
Full Copyright Statement boilerplate of the Internet Society, about copying the document; no obligation on a NAT. | 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. |
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 3022, so its obligations are stated where they were written.