a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids
Future
RFC 8362 - OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 8362, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is not enrolled.
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
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 this summary DECLARES. The gate holds none of them, because this RFC is not enrolled (out-of-scope), so every share below reads what the summary records rather than what the gate enforces
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 carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why
The 4 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 38 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 |
|---|---|---|
| MUSTs declared | 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 | Future |
| Enrolment | Not enrolled (out-of-scope) |
| Requirements | 50 |
| Gated MUST-level | 38 |
| Obligations that bind Ze | 38 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 0 |
| Declared gaps | 0 |
| Gated with no test | 38 |
| Nightly-only evidence | 0 |
| Test tags | 0 |
| Tagged units | 0 |
| Recorded audit verdicts | 0 |
| Discrimination records | 0 |
| Summary | rfc/short/rfc8362.md |
| Requirement shard | rfc/requirements/rfc8362.md |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc8362.txt |
Enrolment
Not enrolled (out-of-scope, the requirements ARE extracted and the owner decided not to offer the feature for now, so the absence is a scope decision rather than a conformance gap): OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility. OUT OF SCOPE as a document by owner decision, 2026-09-01, marked for future development. The extraction is COMPLETE: the source text is at rfc/full/rfc8362.txt and this summary declares all 50 requirements, 38 of them MUST-level. What Ze has is a by-product of RFC 8666 Segment Routing rather than the framework this document defines: three of the seven Extended LSA types are originated, and only when segment routing is enabled (v6OriginateSR, internal/plugins/ospf/sr_origination_v6.go); receipt decoding is reached from one place and reads Prefix-SIDs alone (v6ReceivedPrefixSIDs, sr_reception_v6.go); no SPF calculation reads an Extended LSA, because the base Router-LSA remains the sole SPF vertex; and there is no RFC 8362 configuration surface and none of its Appendix A or B migration machinery. Nine MUST-level requirements are genuinely unmet and 20 more are met only because Ze performs no action on their subject. The most serious is RFC8362-2-1: the seven LS type constants carry the U-bit clear where Section 2 requires it set, which is recorded as a defect in plan/journal/declared-format-contradicts-payload.md and is a fix rather than a scope question. No {gap} annotation is written here, because the scope decision covers the document and the U-bit defect is tracked where a fix is owed.
What the public ledger says
Status: Future
What the ledger says is covered
Three of the seven Extended LSA types are framed and originated, and only undersegment-routing: E-Router (0x2021), E-Intra-Area-Prefix (0x2029) and E-Inter-Area-Prefix (0x2023), through EncodeExtendedLSABody (internal/plugins/ospf/v3/packet/lsa_extended.go). Receipt decoding reads Prefix-SIDs and nothing else. No SPF calculation reads an Extended LSA.
What the ledger says remains
Out of scope as a document by owner decision, 2026-09-01, and tracked for future development. Requirements bound per line inrfc/short/rfc8362.md. E-Network, E-Inter-Area-Router, E-AS-External, E-Type-7 and E-Link have no producer, nothing validates an Extended LSA body before it is installed, and there is no migration or compatibility mode. The LS types Ze emits carry the U-bit clear where Section 2 requires it set, so they do not flood past an OSPFv3 router that does not support them; that one is a defect rather than a scope decision.
Coverage
| Bucket | Count | What it counts |
|---|---|---|
| Positive and negative tests | 0 | one part of the gated population |
| Annotated instead of tested | 0 | one part of the gated population |
| One polarity only | 0 | one part of the gated population |
| No test and no annotation | 38 | 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 | 38 | every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above |
No test and no annotation (38): RFC8362-2-1, RFC8362-3.1.1-1, RFC8362-3.2-1, RFC8362-3.3-1, RFC8362-3.4-1, RFC8362-3.5-1, RFC8362-3.6-1, RFC8362-3.7-1, RFC8362-3.8-1, RFC8362-3.9-1, RFC8362-3.10-1, RFC8362-3.10-2, RFC8362-3.11-1, RFC8362-3.11-2, RFC8362-3.12-1, RFC8362-4.2-1, RFC8362-4.3-1, RFC8362-4.3-2, RFC8362-4.4-1, RFC8362-4.4-2, RFC8362-4.5-1, RFC8362-4.5-2, RFC8362-4.7-1, RFC8362-4.7-2, RFC8362-4.7-3, RFC8362-4.8-1, RFC8362-5-1, RFC8362-5-2, RFC8362-6.2-1, RFC8362-6.3-1, RFC8362-6.3-2, RFC8362-6.3-3, RFC8362-6.3-4, RFC8362-6.3-5, RFC8362-8.1-1, RFC8362-8.1-2, RFC8362-8.2-1, RFC8362-8.2-2
Requirements
| Requirement | Level | Section | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
RFC8362-2-1 | "For backward compatibility, the U-bit MUST be set in the LS Type so that the LSAs will be flooded by OSPFv3 routers that do not understand them." (§2) | ||
| MUST | 2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.1.1-1 | "If the N-bit is set and the PrefixLength is NOT 128 for the IPv6 Address Family or 32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF], the N-bit MUST be ignored." (§3.1.1) | ||
| MUST | 3.1.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.2-1 | The Router-Link TLV is only applicable to the E-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.2) | ||
| MUST | 3.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.3-1 | The Attached-Routers TLV is only applicable to the E-Network-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.3) | ||
| MUST | 3.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.4-1 | The Inter-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.4) | ||
| MUST | 3.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.5-1 | The Inter-Area-Router TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.5) | ||
| MUST | 3.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.6-1 | The External-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-AS-External-LSA and the E-NSSA-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.6) | ||
| MUST | 3.6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.7-1 | The Intra-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA and the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.7) | ||
| MUST | 3.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.8-1 | The IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.8) | ||
| MUST | 3.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.9-1 | The IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.9) | ||
| MUST | 3.9 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.10-1 | Of the IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.10) | ||
| MUST | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.10-2 | "The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.10) | ||
| MUST | 3.10 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.11-1 | Of the IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.11) | ||
| MUST | 3.11 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.11-2 | "The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.11) | ||
| MUST | 3.11 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.12-1 | Of the Route-Tag sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the Route Tag as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.12) | ||
| MUST | 3.12 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.2-1 | In the E-Network-LSA, "Instances of the Attached-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.2) | ||
| MUST | 4.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.3-1 | "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Prefix LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Prefix TLV." (§4.3) | ||
| MUST | 4.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.3-2 | In the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.3) | ||
| MUST | 4.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.4-1 | "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Router-LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Router TLV." (§4.4) | ||
| MUST | 4.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.4-2 | In the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.4) | ||
| MUST | 4.4 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.5-1 | For the E-AS-External-LSA, "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each LSA MUST contain a single External-Prefix TLV." (§4.5) | ||
| MUST | 4.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.5-2 | In the E-AS-External-LSA, "Instances of the External-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.5) | ||
| MUST | 4.5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-1 | Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7) | ||
| MUST | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-2 | Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV, "For IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV MUST be ignored." (§4.7) | ||
| MUST | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-3 | Of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7) | ||
| MUST | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.8-1 | For the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, "The Referenced LS Type MUST be either an E-Router-LSA (0xA021) or an E-Network-LSA (0xA022)." (§4.8) | ||
| MUST | 4.8 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-5-1 | "Extended LSAs that have inconsistent length or other encoding errors, as described herein, MUST NOT be installed in the Link State Database, acknowledged, or flooded." (§5) | ||
| MUST NOT | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-5-2 | "Additionally, an LSA MUST be considered malformed if it does not include all of the required TLVs and sub-TLVs." (§5) | ||
| MUST | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.2-1 | In sparse-mode, "if a top-level TLV is advertised, it MUST include required sub-TLVs, or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 5." (§6.2) | ||
| MUST | 6.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-1 | All implementations MUST adhere to the TLV processing rules, of which rule 1 is: "Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs are ignored when parsing or processing Extended LSAs." (§6.3) | ||
| MUST | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-2 | "Whether or not partial deployment of a given TLV is supported MUST be specified." (§6.3) | ||
| MUST | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-3 | "If partial deployment is not supported, mechanisms to ensure the corresponding feature is not deployed MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3) | ||
| MUST | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-4 | "If partial deployment is supported, backward compatibility and partial deployment MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3) | ||
| MUST | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-5 | "Documents specifying future TLVs or Sub-TLVs MUST specify the requirements for usage of those TLVs or sub-TLVs." (§6.3) | ||
| MUST | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-8.1-1 | Top-level TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.1) | ||
| MUST NOT | 8.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-8.1-2 | For top-level TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.1) | ||
| MUST | 8.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-8.2-1 | Sub-TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.2) | ||
| MUST NOT | 8.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-8.2-2 | For sub-TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.2) | ||
| MUST | 8.2 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.1-1 | The applicability of the LA-bit is expanded, and "it SHOULD be set in Inter-Area-Prefix TLVs ... when the advertised host IPv6 address ... is an interface address." (§3.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-4 | "A single instance of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.8) SHOULD be included in the E-Link-LSA." (§4.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-5 | "Similarly, only a single instance of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV (Section 3.9) SHOULD be included in the E-Link-LSA." (§4.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-4.7-6 | Of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV, "For OSPFv3 IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV SHOULD be ignored." (§4.7) | ||
| SHOULD | 4.7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-5-3 | "Reception of malformed LSAs SHOULD be counted and/or logged for examination by the administrator of the OSPFv3 routing domain." (§5) | ||
| SHOULD | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6-1 | For future TLV-based OSPFv3 LSA extensions, "Both full and, if applicable, partial deployment SHOULD be specified". (§6) | ||
| SHOULD | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-6 | "If a TLV or sub-TLV is recognized but the length is less than the minimum, then the LSA should be considered malformed, and it SHOULD NOT be acknowledged." (§6.3) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-6.3-7 | "Additionally, the occurrence SHOULD be logged with enough information to identify the LSA by type, Link State ID, originator, and sequence number and identify the TLV or sub-TLV in error." (§6.3) | ||
| SHOULD | 6.3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-B-1 | "disabling AreaExtendedLSASupport for a regular OSPFv3 area (not a Stub or NSSA area) when ExtendedLSASupport is enabled is contradictory and SHOULD be prohibited by implementations." (§B) | ||
| SHOULD | B | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3-1 | "In general, TLVs and sub-TLVs MAY occur in any order, and the specification should define whether the TLV or sub-TLV is required and the behavior when there are multiple occurrences of the TLV or sub-TLV." (§3) | ||
| MAY | 3 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.1-2 | The LA-bit "MAY be set in External-Prefix TLVs when the advertised host IPv6 address ... is an interface address." (§3.1) | ||
| MAY | 3.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC8362-3.1.1-2 | "The advertising router MAY choose NOT to set the N-bit even when the above conditions are met." (§3.1.1) | ||
| MAY | 3.1.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
Gaps and untested MUSTs
| Requirement | State | Reason |
|---|---|---|
RFC8362-2-1 "For backward compatibility, the U-bit MUST be set in the LS Type so that the LSAs will be flooded by OSPFv3 routers that do not understand them." (§2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.1.1-1 "If the N-bit is set and the PrefixLength is NOT 128 for the IPv6 Address Family or 32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF], the N-bit MUST be ignored." (§3.1.1) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.2-1 The Router-Link TLV is only applicable to the E-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.3-1 The Attached-Routers TLV is only applicable to the E-Network-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.4-1 The Inter-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.5-1 The Inter-Area-Router TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.6-1 The External-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-AS-External-LSA and the E-NSSA-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.7-1 The Intra-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA and the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.7) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.8-1 The IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.8) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.9-1 The IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.9) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.10-1 Of the IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.10) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.10-2 "The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.10) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.11-1 Of the IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.11) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.11-2 "The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.11) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-3.12-1 Of the Route-Tag sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the Route Tag as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.12) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.2-1 In the E-Network-LSA, "Instances of the Attached-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.3-1 "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Prefix LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Prefix TLV." (§4.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.3-2 In the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.4-1 "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Router-LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Router TLV." (§4.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.4-2 In the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.4) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.5-1 For the E-AS-External-LSA, "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each LSA MUST contain a single External-Prefix TLV." (§4.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.5-2 In the E-AS-External-LSA, "Instances of the External-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.7-1 Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.7-2 Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV, "For IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV MUST be ignored." (§4.7) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.7-3 Of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-4.8-1 For the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, "The Referenced LS Type MUST be either an E-Router-LSA (0xA021) or an E-Network-LSA (0xA022)." (§4.8) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-5-1 "Extended LSAs that have inconsistent length or other encoding errors, as described herein, MUST NOT be installed in the Link State Database, acknowledged, or flooded." (§5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-5-2 "Additionally, an LSA MUST be considered malformed if it does not include all of the required TLVs and sub-TLVs." (§5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.2-1 In sparse-mode, "if a top-level TLV is advertised, it MUST include required sub-TLVs, or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 5." (§6.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.3-1 All implementations MUST adhere to the TLV processing rules, of which rule 1 is: "Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs are ignored when parsing or processing Extended LSAs." (§6.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.3-2 "Whether or not partial deployment of a given TLV is supported MUST be specified." (§6.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.3-3 "If partial deployment is not supported, mechanisms to ensure the corresponding feature is not deployed MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.3-4 "If partial deployment is supported, backward compatibility and partial deployment MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-6.3-5 "Documents specifying future TLVs or Sub-TLVs MUST specify the requirements for usage of those TLVs or sub-TLVs." (§6.3) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-8.1-1 Top-level TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.1) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-8.1-2 For top-level TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.1) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-8.2-1 Sub-TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
RFC8362-8.2-2 For sub-TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.2) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id |
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.
RFC8362-2-1
"For backward compatibility, the U-bit MUST be set in the LS Type so that the LSAs will be flooded by OSPFv3 routers that do not understand them." (§2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.1.1-1
"If the N-bit is set and the PrefixLength is NOT 128 for the IPv6 Address Family or 32 for the IPv4 Address Family [OSPFV3-AF], the N-bit MUST be ignored." (§3.1.1)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.1.1-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.2-1
The Router-Link TLV is only applicable to the E-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.3-1
The Attached-Routers TLV is only applicable to the E-Network-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.3-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.4-1
The Inter-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.4-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.5-1
The Inter-Area-Router TLV is only applicable to the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.6-1
The External-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-AS-External-LSA and the E-NSSA-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.6-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.7-1
The Intra-Area-Prefix TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA and the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.7)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.7-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.8-1
The IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.8)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.8-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.9-1
The IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV is only applicable to the E-Link-LSA: "Inclusion in other Extended LSAs MUST be ignored." (§3.9)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.9-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.10-1
Of the IPv6-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.10)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.10-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.10-2
"The IPv6-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv6 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.10)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.10-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.11-1
Of the IPv4-Forwarding-Address sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the forwarding address as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.11)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.11-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.11-2
"The IPv4-Forwarding-Address TLV is to be used with IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF]. It MUST be ignored for other address families." (§3.11)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.11-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-3.12-1
Of the Route-Tag sub-TLV, "the first specified instance is used as the Route Tag as defined in [OSPFV3]. Instances subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§3.12)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-3.12-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.2-1
In the E-Network-LSA, "Instances of the Attached-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.3-1
"In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Prefix LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Prefix TLV." (§4.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.3-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.3-2
In the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.3-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.4-1
"In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each Inter-Area-Router-LSA MUST contain a single Inter-Area-Router TLV." (§4.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.4-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.4-2
In the E-Inter-Area-Router-LSA, "Instances of the Inter-Area-Router TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.4)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.4-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.5-1
For the E-AS-External-LSA, "In order to retain compatibility and semantics with the current OSPFv3 specification, each LSA MUST contain a single External-Prefix TLV." (§4.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.5-2
In the E-AS-External-LSA, "Instances of the External-Prefix TLV subsequent to the first MUST be ignored." (§4.5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.5-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.7-1
Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.7-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.7-2
Of the IPv6 Link-Local Address TLV, "For IPv4 address families as defined in [OSPFV3-AF], this TLV MUST be ignored." (§4.7)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.7-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.7-3
Of the IPv4 Link-Local Address TLV in the E-Link-LSA, "Instances following the first MUST be ignored." (§4.7)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.7-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-4.8-1
For the E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, "The Referenced LS Type MUST be either an E-Router-LSA (0xA021) or an E-Network-LSA (0xA022)." (§4.8)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-4.8-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-5-1
"Extended LSAs that have inconsistent length or other encoding errors, as described herein, MUST NOT be installed in the Link State Database, acknowledged, or flooded." (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-5-2
"Additionally, an LSA MUST be considered malformed if it does not include all of the required TLVs and sub-TLVs." (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-5-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.2-1
In sparse-mode, "if a top-level TLV is advertised, it MUST include required sub-TLVs, or it will be considered malformed as described in Section 5." (§6.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.3-1
All implementations MUST adhere to the TLV processing rules, of which rule 1 is: "Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs are ignored when parsing or processing Extended LSAs." (§6.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.3-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.3-2
"Whether or not partial deployment of a given TLV is supported MUST be specified." (§6.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.3-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.3-3
"If partial deployment is not supported, mechanisms to ensure the corresponding feature is not deployed MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.3-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.3-4
"If partial deployment is supported, backward compatibility and partial deployment MUST be specified in the document defining the new TLV or sub-TLV." (§6.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.3-4, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-6.3-5
"Documents specifying future TLVs or Sub-TLVs MUST specify the requirements for usage of those TLVs or sub-TLVs." (§6.3)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-6.3-5, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-8.1-1
Top-level TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.1)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-8.1-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-8.1-2
For top-level TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.1)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-8.1-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-8.2-1
Sub-TLV types 32768-33023 are reserved for experimental use; "these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs." (§8.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-8.2-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC8362-8.2-2
For sub-TLV types, "Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned." (§8.2)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC8362-8.2-2, so no unit is bound to it.
Extraction sign-off
No extraction sign-off exists for RFC 8362, so no reviewer has walked its text sentence by sentence.
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 8362, so its obligations are stated where they were written.