Partial

RFC 5575 - Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 5575, 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 ways16.7%2 of 12 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 reason50.0%6 of 12 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 12 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 12 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 MUSTs12of 16 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 scope0of 12 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 all33.3%4 of 12 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 12 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	Partial
Enrolment	Enrolled
Requirements	16
Gated MUST-level	12
Obligations that bind Ze	12
Not applicable, so out of scope	0
Declared gaps	4
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	12
Tagged units	12
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc5575.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc5575.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc5575.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: BGP Flowspec (obsoleted by RFC 8955): 8 single-polarity positive (capability/family/component-ordering/reserved-bits) + 4 gap (Section 6 validation unimplemented, same root cause as RFC8956-5-1)

What the public ledger says

Status: Partial

What the ledger says is covered

IPv4 Flowspec NLRI encode/decode, MP (Code 1) capability negotiation for (AFI 1, SAFI 133/134), traffic-action extended communities, and lowering to the firewall
component ordering and operator/fragment/traffic-marking reserved bits enforced on encode.

What the ledger says remains

Four Section 6 validation MUSTs unmet (same root cause as RFC8956-5-1): 6-1 no eBGP AS_PATH leftmost-neighbor enforcement; 6-2 no feasibility validation against the unicast RIB; 6-3 no flow-spec-vs-best-match originator comparison; 6-4 no more-specific/different-neighbor-AS check.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	2	one part of the gated population
Annotated instead of tested	10	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	12	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (2): RFC5575-4-3, RFC5575-4-4

Annotated instead of tested (10): RFC5575-4-1, RFC5575-4-2, RFC5575-6-1, RFC5575-6-2, RFC5575-6-3, RFC5575-6-4, RFC5575-4-5, RFC5575-4-6, RFC5575-4-7, RFC5575-7-1

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC5575-4-1`	Implementations wishing to exchange flow specification rules MUST use BGP Capability Advertisement to exchange the Multiprotocol Extension Capability Code (Code 1) (§4)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestIPv4FlowSpecNegotiatesMultiprotocolCapability` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the flowspec plugin unconditionally maps its declared ipv4/flow family to a Multiprotocol (Code 1) capability during OPEN, and there is no wrong input the negotiation path rejects (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/register.go:19-22, types.go:47)
`RFC5575-4-2`	The (AFI, SAFI) pair in the Multiprotocol Extension Capability MUST match the application using this NLRI-type (§4)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecIPv4Basic` positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecVPNFamily` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the (AFI 1, SAFI 133/134) assignment is a family-registration constant, not an input guard, so only the positive assignment is assertable (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types.go:47-49, encode.go:79-95)
`RFC5575-4-3`	Flow specification component types MUST appear in strictly ascending numeric order (§4)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecComponentsAscendingOrder` positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecJoinsRepeatedTypeIntoOneComponent` negative`unit/verifyTestParseFlowSpecRefusesRepeatedComponentType`
`RFC5575-4-4`	A present component MUST precede any component of higher numeric type value (§4)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecComponentsAscendingOrder` negative`unit/verifyTestParseFlowSpecRefusesDescendingComponentType`
`RFC5575-6-1`	BGP implementations MUST enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a route received via eBGP contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze runs no eBGP leftmost-neighbor-AS enforcement; the only AS_PATH ingress guard is RFC 4271 Section 9 loop detection and firstASInPath is used solely for MED neighbor comparison (internal/component/bgp/reactor/filter/loop_metrics.go:31, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rib/bestpath.go:544)
`RFC5575-6-2`	Flow specification MUST be validated against unicast routing (feasibility check) (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze decodes a received flowspec NLRI and lowers it to the firewall with no feasibility validation against the unicast RIB, the same absence disclosed for RFC8956-5-1 (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types.go:351, internal/plugins/flowspec-firewall/translate.go:166)
`RFC5575-6-3`	Originator matching MUST be performed: the originator of the flow spec must match the originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: no code compares a flowspec's originator against the best-match unicast route's originator; this is part of the absent Section 6 validation procedure (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/)
`RFC5575-6-4`	There must be no more-specific unicast routes from a different neighboring AS than the best-match route (§6)
	MUST	6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: no code walks more-specific unicast routes to compare neighboring AS, because the Section 6 validation procedure is unimplemented (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/)
`RFC5575-4-5`	Reserved bits in numeric operator format (bit 4) must be 0 (§4, Numeric Operator)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecNumericOperatorReservedBitZero` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the numeric operator byte is built as lenCode<<4 OR'd with only the comparison bits, so reserved bit 4 is never set on encode and decode ignores reserved bits (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types_numeric.go:247-257)
`RFC5575-4-6`	Reserved bits in bitmask operator format (bits 4-5) must be 0 (§4, Bitmask Operator)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecBitmaskOperatorReservedBitsZero` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: bitmask components encode through the same operator builder using only match/not plus the len field, so reserved bits 4-5 are never set on encode (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types_numeric.go:247-257)
`RFC5575-4-7`	Reserved bits in Fragment bitmask (bits 0-3) must be zero (§4, Type 12)
	MUST	4	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecFragmentReservedHighNibbleZero` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the Fragment value is assembled from the four low-nibble flag constants, so the reserved high-nibble bits are never set on encode (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types.go:201-206)
`RFC5575-7-1`	Reserved bytes in Traffic-Marking extended community (bytes 2-6) must be zero (§7)
	MUST	7	positive`unit/verifyTestFlowSpecTrafficMarkingReservedBytesZero` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the traffic-marking community is emitted with literal zero reserved bytes and only the trailing DSCP octet varies (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/encode.go:124-127)
`RFC5575-3-1`	Standard BGP policy mechanisms (UPDATE filtering by NLRI prefix and community matching) SHOULD apply to flow specification NLRI (§3)
	SHOULD	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC5575-9-1`	Implementations SHOULD provide a mechanism to log the packet header of filtered traffic (§9)
	SHOULD	9	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC5575-9-2`	Implementations SHOULD provide a mechanism to count the number of matches for a given flow specification rule (§9)
	SHOULD	9	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC5575-7-2`	User-defined community mappings MAY be used for platform-specific behaviors (§7)
	MAY	7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC5575-6-1` BGP implementations MUST enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a route received via eBGP contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position (§6)	{gap}, no test	ze runs no eBGP leftmost-neighbor-AS enforcement; the only AS_PATH ingress guard is RFC 4271 Section 9 loop detection and firstASInPath is used solely for MED neighbor comparison (internal/component/bgp/reactor/filter/loop_metrics.go:31, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rib/bestpath.go:544)
`RFC5575-6-2` Flow specification MUST be validated against unicast routing (feasibility check) (§6)	{gap}, no test	ze decodes a received flowspec NLRI and lowers it to the firewall with no feasibility validation against the unicast RIB, the same absence disclosed for RFC8956-5-1 (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/types.go:351, internal/plugins/flowspec-firewall/translate.go:166)
`RFC5575-6-3` Originator matching MUST be performed: the originator of the flow spec must match the originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix (§6)	{gap}, no test	no code compares a flowspec's originator against the best-match unicast route's originator; this is part of the absent Section 6 validation procedure (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/)
`RFC5575-6-4` There must be no more-specific unicast routes from a different neighboring AS than the best-match route (§6)	{gap}, no test	no code walks more-specific unicast routes to compare neighboring AS, because the Section 6 validation procedure is unimplemented (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/flowspec/)

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.

`RFC5575-4-1`

Implementations wishing to exchange flow specification rules MUST use BGP Capability Advertisement to exchange the Multiprotocol Extension Capability Code (Code 1) (§4)