a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids
Experimental
RFC 3630 - Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 3630, 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
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
Neutral
measures that are neither good news nor bad
MUST-level requirements the gate HOLDS. A population, not a result: the shares beside it are what says how Ze stands
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
The 8 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 5 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 | Experimental |
| Enrolment | Enrolled |
| Requirements | 10 |
| Gated MUST-level | 5 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 4 |
| Declared gaps | 0 |
| Declared gaps a test demonstrates | 0 |
| Gated with no test | 0 |
| Nightly-only evidence | 0 |
| Test tags | 2 |
| Tagged units | 2 |
| Recorded audit verdicts | 1 |
| Discrimination records | 0 |
| Summary | rfc/short/rfc3630.md |
| Requirement shard | rfc/requirements/rfc3630.md |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc3630.txt |
Enrolment
Enrolled: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) LSA -- the Type 10 area-local Opaque LSA (Opaque type 1). Five MUST-level requirements gated: one tested, four {not-applicable}. RFC3630-1-1 (non-TE-capable nodes flood TE LSAs as ordinary Type-10 area-local Opaque LSAs) is covered by TestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope in internal/plugins/ospf/lsdb/rfc3630_te_test.go: positive, the consumer-agnostic LSDB carrier floods a Type-10 opaque type-1 (packet.TEOpaqueType) LSA to a Flood-eligible same-area neighbor purely by area scope with no TE code in the path (producer eligibleInterface default iface.AreaID==area at flooding.go:401, floodExcept at flooding.go:318 whose only opaque gate is the RFC 5250 O-bit at flooding.go:369, never a TE-type check); negative, the same area-local LSA is NOT flooded out an interface in a different area, bounding it exactly like any other Type-10 opaque LSA. RFC3630-6-1..6-4 (top-level and sub-TLV Type ranges 32768-32777 experimental / 32778-65535 reserved pending a Standards Track RFC) are {not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not the IANA registry nor an RFC author, so it neither allocates nor documents these type ranges. The 2.4.1/2.5.7/3/2.5.4 SHOULDs and MAYs are not gated.
What the public ledger says
Status: Experimental
What the ledger says is covered:
TE LSA body and sub-TLV support.What the ledger says remains:
Same OSPF experimental status.Coverage
| Bucket | Count | What it counts |
|---|---|---|
| Positive and negative tests | 1 | one part of the gated population |
| Annotated (including scoped evidence) | 4 | 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 | 5 | every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above |
Positive and negative tests (1): RFC3630-1-1
Annotated (including scoped evidence) (4): RFC3630-6-1, RFC3630-6-2, RFC3630-6-3, RFC3630-6-4
Requirements
| Requirement | Level | Section | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
RFC3630-1-1 | if non-TE capable nodes exist in the topology, they MUST flood TE LSAs as any other type 10 (area-local scope) Opaque LSAs (see [3]). (§1) -- the ext-1 opaque carrier floods Type 10 by scope regardless of any TE consumer; Ze: spec-ospf-ext-2 | ||
| MUST | 1 | ||
RFC3630-6-1 | o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6) | ||
| MUST NOT | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not an RFC author; it neither authors RFCs nor mentions the experimental top-level Type range 32768-32777 |
|
RFC3630-6-2 | Here are the guidelines (using terms defined in [10]) for the assignment of top level Types in TE LSAs: o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6) | ||
| MUST | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not the IANA registry nor an RFC author; it neither assigns nor documents the reserved top-level Type range 32778-65535 |
|
RFC3630-6-3 | o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6) | ||
| MUST NOT | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not an RFC author; it neither authors RFCs nor mentions the experimental sub-TLV Type range 32768-32777 |
|
RFC3630-6-4 | The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs in a TE LSA are as follows: o Types in the range 10-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6) | ||
| MUST | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not the IANA registry nor an RFC author; it neither assigns nor documents the reserved sub-TLV Type range 32778-65535 |
|
RFC3630-2.4.1-1 | If a router advertises BGP routes with the BGP next hop attribute set to the BGP router ID, then the Router Address SHOULD be the same as the BGP router ID. (§2.4.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 2.4.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC3630-2.5.7-1 | This SHOULD be user-configurable; the default value should be the Maximum Bandwidth. (§2.5.7) -- Ze: `max-reservable-bandwidth` leaf, defaulting to `max-bandwidth`, in applyTELinkAttributes | ||
| SHOULD | 2.5.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC3630-3-1 | In any case, the origination of Traffic Engineering LSAs SHOULD be rate-limited to at most one every MinLSInterval [1]. (§3) -- Ze reuses the carrier's MinLSInterval rate-limit in OriginateSelf; a pull-model unchanged body floods nothing | ||
| SHOULD | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC3630-2.5.4-1 | If the Link Type of the link is Multi-access, the Remote Interface IP Address is set to 0.0.0.0; alternatively, an implementation MAY choose not to send this sub-TLV. (§2.5.4) -- Ze omits sub-TLV 4 on multi-access links | ||
| MAY | 2.5.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC3630-3-2 | an implementation MAY set thresholds (for example, a bandwidth change threshold) that trigger immediate flooding (§3) | ||
| MAY | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
Gaps and untested MUSTs
| Requirement | State | Reason |
|---|---|---|
RFC3630-6-1 o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not an RFC author; it neither authors RFCs nor mentions the experimental top-level Type range 32768-32777 |
RFC3630-6-2 Here are the guidelines (using terms defined in [10]) for the assignment of top level Types in TE LSAs: o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not the IANA registry nor an RFC author; it neither assigns nor documents the reserved top-level Type range 32778-65535 |
RFC3630-6-3 o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not an RFC author; it neither authors RFCs nor mentions the experimental sub-TLV Type range 32768-32777 |
RFC3630-6-4 The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs in a TE LSA are as follows: o Types in the range 10-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze is an implementation, not the IANA registry nor an RFC author; it neither assigns nor documents the reserved sub-TLV Type range 32778-65535 |
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.
RFC3630-1-1
if non-TE capable nodes exist in the topology, they MUST flood TE LSAs as any other type 10 (area-local scope) Opaque LSAs (see [3]). (§1) -- the ext-1 opaque carrier floods Type 10 by scope regardless of any TE consumer; Ze: spec-ospf-ext-2
Audit verdict: enforced (the tests do what the requirement demands), fresh. Non-TE capable nodes MUST flood TE LSAs as any other type 10 opaque LSA. TestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope (ospf/lsdb) asserts the TE LSA reaches the retransmit list of the same-area opaque-capable neighbour. That goes red if the carrier drops or withholds TE LSAs. It also asserts the LSA is absent from the other area's neighbour, which goes red if TE LSAs were flooded beyond area-local scope, unlike any other type 10.
| Polarity | Test | Kind and tier | Proof state |
|---|---|---|---|
| negative | TestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope |
unit/verify | unproven |
| positive | TestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope |
unit/verify | unproven |
RFC3630-6-1
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC3630-6-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC3630-6-2
Here are the guidelines (using terms defined in [10]) for the assignment of top level Types in TE LSAs: o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC3630-6-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC3630-6-3
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. (§6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC3630-6-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC3630-6-4
The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs in a TE LSA are as follows: o Types in the range 10-32767 are to be assigned via Standards Action. o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. (§6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC3630-6-4, so no unit is bound to it.
Extraction sign-off
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewer | claude |
| Signed off | 2026-09-21 |
| Register | rfc2119 |
| Source | rfc/full/rfc3630.txt |
| Source fingerprint | 8ac1c1508da20146 |
| Record | rfc/extraction/rfc3630.json |
| Mapped sentences | 5 |
| 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 | not stated |
1 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
1.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.3.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.3.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.4.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.4.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.6 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.7 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.8 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2.5.9 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
6 |
not stated | 4 | walked | not stated |
7 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
8 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
8.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
8.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
9 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
10 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
Excluded sentences
The walk over RFC 3630 declined no sentence: every site it found is mapped to a requirement.
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 3630, so its obligations are stated where they were written.