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
an obligation that does not bind Ze. A {not-applicable} annotation says it never bound; a {feature-declined} annotation says its condition is an optional feature Ze does not offer, and quotes the RFC sentence that makes it optional. Scope, not coverage: it stays in the denominator every share on this page is taken over
a {not-applicable} annotation says the obligation does not bind Ze, so no test is owed for it. It stays in the denominator every share here is taken over
a {lower-layer} annotation says a layer under Ze performs the behavior, on state Ze installs into that layer, and names the producer that installs it. The obligation binds Ze and is met; Ze proves none of it, because its own boundary carries no value the behavior reads
a {feature-declined} annotation says the obligation is conditional on a feature the RFC makes optional and Ze does not offer, and it quotes the sentence that makes it optional. The condition is false, so nothing is owed and nothing is missing. It stays in the denominator every share here is taken over
Negative
what Ze owes
no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why
The 7 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 38 gated MUSTs: 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 |
| Not applicable | 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 |
| Met below Ze | neutral | no color: an obligation met below Ze is neither a test Ze wrote nor work Ze owes, and the two green shares above are what says how much Ze proves itself |
| Optional feature declined | neutral | no color: an obligation whose condition Ze never meets is neither an achievement nor a failure. The absent FEATURE is disclosed on the RFC's own status row, as an implementation gap a later scope decision can revisit |
| 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 |
| 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.