Experimental

RFC 7770 - Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 7770, 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 ways25.0%1 of 4 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 reason75.0%3 of 4 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 4 binding obligations

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

No test at all0.0%0 of 4 binding obligations

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

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 6 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 MUSTs11of 24 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 scope7of 11 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 4 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	24
Gated MUST-level	11
Obligations that bind Ze	4
Not applicable, so out of scope	7
Declared gaps	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	6
Tagged units	6
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc7770.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc7770.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc7770.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: OSPF Router Information LSA (RFC 7770): 1 MET (capabilities reflect config) + 3 single-polarity positive (TLV ordering, functional-cap zero) + 7 not-applicable (IETF document-author / IANA-process obligations)

What the public ledger says

Status: Experimental

What the ledger says is covered:

Router Information LSA body and multi-instance ordering.

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	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	11	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (1): RFC7770-2.4-2

Annotated instead of tested (10): RFC7770-2.4-1, RFC7770-2.6-1, RFC7770-2.6-2, RFC7770-2.3-1, RFC7770-2.6-3, RFC7770-2.7-1, RFC7770-5.2-1, RFC7770-2-1, RFC7770-5.3-1, RFC7770-5.2-2

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC7770-2.4-1`	If the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is included, it must be the first TLV in the first instance (Instance 0) of the OSPF RI LSA (§2.4) -- Ze emits the type-1 TLV first (spec-ospf-ext-3, `buildRIInstances`)
	MUST	2.4	positive`unit/verifyTestRITLVType1First` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze always emits the type-1 Informational Capabilities TLV first in Instance 0 and, being informational-only on receive, never rejects a peer that misorders it, so only the positive direction is meaningful (internal/plugins/ospf/ri.go:153)
`RFC7770-2.4-2`	The Router Informational Capabilities TLV must accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope advertised (§2.4) -- derived from live config (`deriveRICapabilities`)
	MUST	2.4	positive`unit/verifyTestRICapabilityBitsFromState` positive`unit/verifyTestRICapabilityTEBitFromConfig` negative`unit/verifyTestRICapabilityBitsFromState`
`RFC7770-2.6-1`	If the Router Functional Capabilities TLV is included, it must be included in the first instance of the LSA (§2.6) -- Ze carries the empty type-2 TLV in Instance 0
	MUST	2.6	positive`unit/verifyTestRITLVRegistered` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze carries the type-2 Functional Capabilities TLV in Instance 0's lead on every origination and does not police peer placement on receive, so only the positive direction is meaningful (internal/plugins/ospf/ri.go:155)
`RFC7770-2.6-2`	The Router Functional Capabilities TLV must reflect the advertising OSPF router's actual functional capabilities (§2.6) -- carried empty (no functional capability supported)
	MUST	2.6	positive`unit/verifyTestRIFunctionalCapabilitiesEmittedZero` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze supports no functional capability, so it emits the constant all-zero type-2 value (accurately none-supported), and there is no variable capability to exercise the opposite direction (internal/plugins/ospf/ri.go:155)
`RFC7770-2.3-1`	When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification must explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only, OSPFv3 only, or both (§2.3)
	MUST	2.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds the author of an IETF specification that defines a new RI TLV; ze implements TLVs but publishes no such specification, so it plays no role this MUST governs
`RFC7770-2.6-3`	The specifications for functional capabilities advertised in the Functional Capabilities TLV must describe protocol behavior and address backwards compatibility (§2.6)
	MUST	2.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds the author of a functional-capability specification; ze advertises no functional capability and authors no such document
`RFC7770-2.7-1`	TLV flooding-scope rules must be specified in the accompanying specifications for future Router Information LSA TLVs (§2.7)
	MUST	2.7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds the author of a specification that defines a new RI-TLV; ze selects flooding scope per configuration and does not specify TLV scope rules in a standards document
`RFC7770-5.2-1`	OSPFv3 LSAs with a function code in the Vendor Private Use range 8184-8190 must include the Enterprise Code as the first 4 octets following the 20 octets of LSA header (§5.2)
	MUST	5.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze originates no OSPFv3 Vendor Private Use LSA (no reference to function codes 8184-8190 in internal/plugins/ospf/), so the requirement's antecedent never holds
`RFC7770-2-1`	If a new OSPFv3 LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation must include the valid combinations of the U, S2, and S1 bits for the LSA (§5.2) -- U=1 with S2/S1 = link/area/AS (0x800C/0xA00C/0xC00C), documented in docs/architecture/wire/ospf.md
	MUST	2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds the party documenting a new OSPFv3 function code; ze implements the already-defined function code 12 rather than documenting a new one, so the antecedent is false (the U/S2/S1 combinations are recorded at docs/architecture/wire/ospf.md)
`RFC7770-5.3-1`	Before any assignments can be made in the reserved RI TLV range 32778-65535, there must be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations covering the range (§5.3)
	MUST	5.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds the IANA/IETF assignment process; ze registers no TLV type in the reserved 32778-65535 range and cannot author a Standards Track RFC
`RFC7770-5.2-2`	OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the experimental range 8176-8183 must not be mentioned by RFCs (§5.2)
	MUST NOT	5.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this binds RFC authors; ze is an implementation, not an RFC, and references no experimental function code 8176-8183 in internal/plugins/ospf/
`RFC7770-2.1-1`	The first Opaque ID / Instance ID (0) should always contain the Router Informational Capabilities TLV and, if advertised, the Router Functional Capabilities TLV (§2.1, §2.2) -- Instance 0 always carries type-1 then type-2 (spec-ospf-ext-3)
	SHOULD	2.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.7-2`	If AS-wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should also advertise area-scoped LSA(s) into any attached NSSA area(s) (§2.7) -- Ze originates area-scoped RI into attached NSSAs when AS scope is selected
	SHOULD	2.7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-5.2-3`	If a new OSPFv3 LSA Function Code is documented, it should also describe how the Link State ID is to be assigned (§5.2)
	SHOULD	5.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-3-1`	For backwards compatibility, previously advertised Router Information TLVs should continue to be advertised in the first instance (0) of the RI LSA (§3) -- Instance 0 retains the type-1 TLV; overflow spills to Instance 1+
	SHOULD	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-1-1`	For future OSPF extensions, the RI LSA advertisement may be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery (§1)
	MAY	1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.2-1`	OSPFv3 routers may advertise multiple RI LSAs per flooding scope (§2.2)
	MAY	2.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.4-3`	An OSPF router advertising an RI LSA may include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV (§2.4) -- Ze always includes it
	MAY	2.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.4-4`	The Router Informational Capabilities TLV may be followed by optional TLVs that further specify a capability (§2.4)
	MAY	2.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.6-4`	An OSPF router advertising an RI LSA may include the Router Functional Capabilities TLV (§2.6) -- Ze carries it (empty by default)
	MAY	2.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.6-5`	The OSPF extensions advertised in the Functional Capabilities TLV may be used by other OSPF routers to dictate protocol operation (§2.6)
	MAY	2.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.6-6`	The Router Functional Capabilities TLV may be followed by optional TLVs that further specify a capability (§2.6)
	MAY	2.6	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.7-3`	An OSPF router may advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area-scoped LSA(s) and an AS-scoped LSA are advertised (§2.7)
	MAY	2.7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC7770-2.7-4`	The originating router may advertise multiple RI LSAs with the same Instance ID as long as the flooding scopes differ (§2.7)
	MAY	2.7	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC7770-2.3-1` When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification must explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only, OSPFv3 only, or both (§2.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds the author of an IETF specification that defines a new RI TLV; ze implements TLVs but publishes no such specification, so it plays no role this MUST governs
`RFC7770-2.6-3` The specifications for functional capabilities advertised in the Functional Capabilities TLV must describe protocol behavior and address backwards compatibility (§2.6)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds the author of a functional-capability specification; ze advertises no functional capability and authors no such document
`RFC7770-2.7-1` TLV flooding-scope rules must be specified in the accompanying specifications for future Router Information LSA TLVs (§2.7)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds the author of a specification that defines a new RI-TLV; ze selects flooding scope per configuration and does not specify TLV scope rules in a standards document
`RFC7770-5.2-1` OSPFv3 LSAs with a function code in the Vendor Private Use range 8184-8190 must include the Enterprise Code as the first 4 octets following the 20 octets of LSA header (§5.2)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze originates no OSPFv3 Vendor Private Use LSA (no reference to function codes 8184-8190 in internal/plugins/ospf/), so the requirement's antecedent never holds
`RFC7770-2-1` If a new OSPFv3 LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation must include the valid combinations of the U, S2, and S1 bits for the LSA (§5.2) -- U=1 with S2/S1 = link/area/AS (0x800C/0xA00C/0xC00C), documented in docs/architecture/wire/ospf.md	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds the party documenting a new OSPFv3 function code; ze implements the already-defined function code 12 rather than documenting a new one, so the antecedent is false (the U/S2/S1 combinations are recorded at docs/architecture/wire/ospf.md)
`RFC7770-5.3-1` Before any assignments can be made in the reserved RI TLV range 32778-65535, there must be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations covering the range (§5.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds the IANA/IETF assignment process; ze registers no TLV type in the reserved 32778-65535 range and cannot author a Standards Track RFC
`RFC7770-5.2-2` OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the experimental range 8176-8183 must not be mentioned by RFCs (§5.2)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this binds RFC authors; ze is an implementation, not an RFC, and references no experimental function code 8176-8183 in internal/plugins/ospf/

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.

`RFC7770-2.4-1`

If the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is included, it must be the first TLV in the first instance (Instance 0) of the OSPF RI LSA (§2.4) -- Ze emits the type-1 TLV first (spec-ospf-ext-3, `buildRIInstances`)