Experimental

RFC 5305 - IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 5305, 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 ways80.0%4 of 5 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 5 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 5 binding obligations

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

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 10 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 MUSTs8of 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 scope3of 8 gated MUSTs

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

Negative

what Ze owes

No test at all20.0%1 of 5 binding obligations

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

The 4 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 5 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	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
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	8
Obligations that bind Ze	5
Not applicable, so out of scope	3
Declared gaps	1
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	10
Tagged units	10
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc5305.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc5305.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc5305.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TLV 22 extended IS reachability, TLV 135 extended IP reachability): eight MUST-level requirements. Four are met with positive+negative tags in internal/plugins/isis: 3-2 (SHALL clamp/saturate the wide path metric), 4-1 (do not install a route at or above MaxPathMetric), 4.1-1 (set the up/down bit correctly on a down-leak), 2-1 (retain unknown sub-TLVs without rejecting). 3.2-1, 3.2-2, 4.3-1 are {not-applicable}: ze implements no IS-IS TE sub-TLVs (6/8) or TLV 134. 3-1 (a maximum-metric link must not be used in normal SPF) is {gap}: ze relaxes a 2^24-1-metric link into SPF, excluding only metrics at or above MaxPathMetric (0xFE000000). Disclosed in the docs/features/rfc-status.md RFC 5305 row.

What the public ledger says

Status: Experimental

What the ledger says is covered:

Extended IS reachability (TLV 22) and extended IPv4 reachability (TLV 135) with wide metrics and the up/down bit
unknown sub-TLVs retained
tests bound per requirement in rfc/requirements/rfc5305.md.

What the ledger says remains

RFC5305-3-1 gap: a link advertised with the maximum link metric (2^24-1 = 16777215) is still used in normal SPF (spf/graph.go builds the edge with the raw metric and spf/spf.go excludes only metrics at or above MaxPathMetric 0xFE000000), so the Section 3 maximum-link-metric exclusion is not implemented. TE sub-TLVs (6/8) and TLV 134 (TE Router ID) are not implemented (no IS-IS TE).

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	4	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	8	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (4): RFC5305-3-2, RFC5305-4-1, RFC5305-4.1-1, RFC5305-2-1

Annotated instead of tested (4): RFC5305-3-1, RFC5305-3.2-1, RFC5305-3.2-2, RFC5305-4.3-1

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC5305-3-1`	Use a TLV 22 link advertised with metric 2^24 minus 1 in normal SPF (Section 3)
	MUST NOT	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze relaxes a maximum-metric (16777215) link into normal SPF -- internal/plugins/isis/spf/graph.go:192-194 builds the edge with the raw metric and spf/spf.go:208-211 excludes only metrics >= MaxPathMetric (0xFE000000), so the RFC 5305 Section 3 maximum-link-metric exclusion is not implemented
`RFC5305-3-2`	Clamp metrics at or above MAX_PATH_METRIC (0xFE000000) to MAX_PATH_METRIC (Section 3, Section 3.7)
	SHALL	3	positive`unit/verifyTestISISMetricWidth` negative`unit/verifyTestISISMetricWidth`
`RFC5305-4-1`	Consider a TLV 135 prefix with metric above MAX_PATH_METRIC in normal SPF (Section 4)
	MUST NOT	4	positive`unit/verifyTestISISMetricWidth` negative`unit/verifyTestISISMetricWidth`
`RFC5305-4.1-1`	Set the TLV 135 up/down bit to 1 when advertising down the hierarchy or across same-level areas (Section 4.1)
	MUST	4.1	positive`unit/verifyTestISISEngineLeakOrigination` negative`unit/verifyTestISISEngineLeakOrigination` negative`unit/verifyTestISISRedistConsumerConnected`
`RFC5305-3.2-1`	Inject sub-TLV 6 / sub-TLV 8 / Router-ID addresses as /32 routes (Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 4.3)
	MUST NOT	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze never decodes the RFC 5305 TE sub-TLVs (sub-TLV 6/8) or TLV 134 into an address; internal/plugins/isis/spf/graph.go:192-194 reads only edges and drops sub-TLVs, and route.go:155 installs only node.Prefixes, so there is no per-link /32 injection code path
`RFC5305-3.2-2`	Include sub-TLV 6 (and sub-TLV 8 on point-to-point) when implementing TE (Section 3.2, Section 3.3)
	MUST	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this obligation is conditional on implementing IS-IS TE; ze originates no TLV 22 TE sub-TLVs (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/encode.go:101-107 writes a zero sub-TLV length), so it does not implement the TE metric it would govern
`RFC5305-4.3-1`	Include the TE Router ID TLV (134) when implementing TE (Section 4.3)
	MUST	4.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this obligation is conditional on implementing IS-IS TE; TLV 134 (TE Router ID) is absent from ze's IS-IS codec type set (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go:17-32), so ze originates and consumes no TLV 134
`RFC5305-2-1`	Ignore and skip unknown sub-TLVs on receipt (Section 2)
	MUST	2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISTLV22RoundTrip` positive`unit/verifyTestISISTLVIPv4RoundTrip` negative`unit/verifyTestISISTLV22Truncated`
`RFC5305-3.1-1`	Include each optional sub-TLV (3, 9, 10, 11, 18) at most once per TLV 22 (Section 3.1, Section 3.4 through Section 3.7)
	SHOULD	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC5305-4.3-2`	Include the TE Router ID TLV more than once per LSP (Section 4.3)
	SHOULD NOT	4.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC5305-3-1` Use a TLV 22 link advertised with metric 2^24 minus 1 in normal SPF (Section 3)	{gap}, no test	ze relaxes a maximum-metric (16777215) link into normal SPF -- internal/plugins/isis/spf/graph.go:192-194 builds the edge with the raw metric and spf/spf.go:208-211 excludes only metrics >= MaxPathMetric (0xFE000000), so the RFC 5305 Section 3 maximum-link-metric exclusion is not implemented
`RFC5305-3.2-1` Inject sub-TLV 6 / sub-TLV 8 / Router-ID addresses as /32 routes (Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 4.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze never decodes the RFC 5305 TE sub-TLVs (sub-TLV 6/8) or TLV 134 into an address; internal/plugins/isis/spf/graph.go:192-194 reads only edges and drops sub-TLVs, and route.go:155 installs only node.Prefixes, so there is no per-link /32 injection code path
`RFC5305-3.2-2` Include sub-TLV 6 (and sub-TLV 8 on point-to-point) when implementing TE (Section 3.2, Section 3.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this obligation is conditional on implementing IS-IS TE; ze originates no TLV 22 TE sub-TLVs (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/encode.go:101-107 writes a zero sub-TLV length), so it does not implement the TE metric it would govern
`RFC5305-4.3-1` Include the TE Router ID TLV (134) when implementing TE (Section 4.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this obligation is conditional on implementing IS-IS TE; TLV 134 (TE Router ID) is absent from ze's IS-IS codec type set (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go:17-32), so ze originates and consumes no TLV 134

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.