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

Tested both ways100.0%1 of 1 binding obligations

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 binding obligations

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 binding obligations

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

No test at all0.0%0 of 1 binding obligations

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

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 2 tagged units

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

Neutral

measures that are neither good news nor bad

Gated MUSTs5of 10 this summary declares

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

Out of scope4of 5 gated MUSTs

a {not-applicable} annotation says the obligation does not bind Ze. Scope, not coverage: it is in no share below

The 4 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 1 obligations that bind Ze: 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
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
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
Obligations that bind Ze	1
Not applicable, so out of scope	4
Declared gaps	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	2
Tagged units	2
Recorded audit verdicts	0
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 instead of tested	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
Evidence that runs nightly only	0	an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in
Gated MUST-level requirements	5	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (1): RFC3630-1-1

Annotated instead of tested (4): RFC3630-6-1, RFC3630-6-2, RFC3630-6-3, RFC3630-6-4

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC3630-1-1`	Non-TE capable nodes must flood TE LSAs as any other type 10 (area-local scope) Opaque LSAs (§1) -- the ext-1 opaque carrier floods Type 10 by scope regardless of any TE consumer (Ze: spec-ospf-ext-2)
	MUST	1	positive`unit/verifyTestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope` negative`unit/verifyTestRFC3630NonTECapableFloodsTELSAByScope`
`RFC3630-6-1`	Top-level Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use, must not be mentioned by RFCs (§6)
	MUST NOT	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no 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`	Top-level Types 32778-65535: before any assignment, there must be a Standards Track RFC specifying IANA Considerations covering the range (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no 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`	Sub-TLV Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use, must not be mentioned by RFCs (§6)
	MUST NOT	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no 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`	Sub-TLV Types 32778-65535: before any assignment, there must be a Standards Track RFC specifying IANA Considerations covering the range (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no 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, the Router Address should be the same as the BGP router ID (§2.4.1)
	SHOULD	2.4.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC3630-2.5.7-1`	Maximum Reservable Bandwidth should be user-configurable; default value should be the Maximum Bandwidth (§2.5.7) -- Ze: `max-reservable-bandwidth` leaf, defaulting to `max-bandwidth` (applyTELinkAttributes)
	SHOULD	2.5.7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC3630-3-1`	Origination of Traffic Engineering LSAs should be rate-limited to at most one every MinLSInterval (§3) -- Ze reuses the carrier's MinLSInterval rate-limit (OriginateSelf); a pull-model unchanged body floods nothing
	SHOULD	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC3630-2.5.4-1`	An implementation may choose not to send the Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV for Multi-access links (§2.5.4) -- Ze omits sub-TLV 4 on multi-access links
	MAY	2.5.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC3630-3-2`	An implementation may set thresholds (e.g., a bandwidth change threshold) that trigger immediate flooding (§3)
	MAY	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC3630-6-1` Top-level Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use, 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` Top-level Types 32778-65535: before any assignment, there must be a Standards Track RFC specifying IANA Considerations covering the range (§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` Sub-TLV Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use, 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` Sub-TLV Types 32778-65535: before any assignment, there must be a Standards Track RFC specifying IANA Considerations covering the range (§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`

Non-TE capable nodes must flood TE LSAs as any other type 10 (area-local scope) Opaque LSAs (§1) -- the ext-1 opaque carrier floods Type 10 by scope regardless of any TE consumer (Ze: spec-ospf-ext-2)