a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids
No row in the public ledger
RFC 8571 - BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 8571, 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
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
scoped tests exist; the remaining obligation is unmet or unproven, with zero whole-requirement credit
no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why
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
0 weak, wrong or unimplemented, 0 no longer current. Each is named below under its own requirement id
Neutral
measures that are neither good news nor bad
MUST-level requirements the gate HOLDS. A population, not a result: the shares beside it are what says how Ze stands
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
No card above is a share of a population, so there is nothing to add up.
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 |
| Partial proof; remaining gap | ok | green at zero, RED above it: a tested clause cannot prove the whole requirement |
| 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 |
| 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 | ok | 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 | No row in the public ledger |
| Enrolment | Enrolled |
| Requirements | 0 |
| Gated MUST-level | 0 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 0 |
| Declared gaps | 0 |
| Declared gaps a test demonstrates | 0 |
| Gated with no test | 0 |
| Nightly-only evidence | 0 |
| Test tags | 0 |
| Tagged units | 0 |
| Recorded audit verdicts | 0 |
| Discrimination records | 0 |
| Summary | rfc/short/rfc8571.md |
| Requirement shard | no requirement declared, so no shard is generated |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc8571.txt |
Enrolment
Enrolled: BGP-LS performance-metric TLV definitions. RFC 8571 states no local RFC 2119 MUST-level requirement. Sections 2.1-2.7 refer field semantics and values to RFC 8570 and RFC 7471.
What the public ledger says
No row in the public ledger, so its summary declares `| Support | - |` and docs/features/rfc-status.md carries no row for RFC 8571.
Coverage
RFC 8571 declares no MUST-level requirement, so the gate counts nothing here.
Requirements
RFC 8571 declares no requirement, so this summary generates no shard.
Gaps and untested MUSTs
RFC 8571 declares no gap, and every gated MUST it carries has a test bound to it.
Proof state
RFC 8571 carries no gated, tagged or audited requirement, so there is no proof state to state.
Extraction sign-off
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewer | Main integration; independent source-mapping review: SourceIdentityReview |
| Signed off | 2026-09-22 |
| Register | prose |
| Source | rfc/full/rfc8571.txt |
| Source fingerprint | 4418647079d036e7 |
| Record | rfc/extraction/rfc8571.json |
| Mapped sentences | 0 |
| Declined as scope | 3 |
| Relocated to a spec, which Ze OWES | 0 |
| Unclassified | 0 |
Sections
| Section | Name | Sites | Disposition | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
front |
Read abstract, status, copyright and contents | 1 | walked | Read abstract, status, copyright and contents. The sole lowercase must concerns the IETF Trust code-component licence. |
1 |
not stated | 1 | walked | The introduction explains why new Link Attribute TLVs are required to carry existing IGP metrics; it does not direct a speaker to originate all metrics. |
2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Defines type codes 1114-1120 as Link Attribute TLVs and states that TLV formats follow RFC 7752. These descriptive format definitions remain in the summary. |
2.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1114, length 4, A bit, seven reserved bits and 24-bit Delay. The sentence referring semantics and values to RFC 8570 and RFC 7471 is descriptive incorporation, not a local MUST clause. No checklist ID is declared for it. |
2.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1115, length 8, A bit, seven reserved bits and 24-bit Min Delay, then eight reserved bits and 24-bit Max Delay. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1116, length 4, eight reserved bits and 24-bit Delay Variation. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1117, length 4, A bit, seven reserved bits and 24-bit Link Loss. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.5 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1118, length 4, Residual Bandwidth value with no reserved field. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.6 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1119, length 4, Available Bandwidth value with no reserved field. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.7 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Type 1120, length 4, Utilized Bandwidth value with no reserved field. Incorporates IGP field semantics without a local keyword obligation. |
2.8 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Maps the seven BGP-LS types to IS-IS sub-TLVs 33-39 and OSPFv2/OSPFv3 sub-TLVs 27-33. The summary retains these mappings. |
3 |
not stated | 1 | walked | Refers BGP security to existing documents and assumes IGP sources support security and authentication described in RFC 8570 and RFC 7471. States no additional risk beyond RFC 7752 link attributes; no independent RFC 8571 MUST is extracted. |
4 |
Reports IANA assignments 1114-1120 | 0 | walked | Reports IANA assignments 1114-1120. The assigned values are retained in the summary. |
5 |
Reference-list container; no speaker obligation | 0 | walked | Reference-list container; no speaker obligation. |
5.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | Normative references identify RFC 7471, RFC 7752 and RFC 8570. The summary preserves their role in field semantics and base TLV format. |
5.2 |
Informative references identify BGP security documents | 0 | walked | Informative references identify BGP security documents. Read the following acknowledgements, contributors and author addresses; the lowercase should concerns coauthor recognition. |
Excluded sentences
| Site | Excluded kind | Reason | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|
front:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
The copyright notice's code-component licence sentence is IETF Trust boilerplate. It does not specify BGP-LS protocol behaviour. | Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. |
1:1 |
not-a-requirementnever bound Ze the sentence states a fact or describes another document, and directs no implementation |
The introductory sentence explains that new TLVs are required to carry the metrics defined in RFC 8570 and RFC 7471. It describes the motivation for the format definitions rather than requiring an implementation to advertise every metric. | New BGP-LS Link Attribute TLVs are required in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471]. |
3:1 |
cross-documentnever bound Ze the obligation belongs to another document that this one only cites |
The sentence assumes IGP instances originating these TLVs support security and authentication mechanisms described in RFC 8570 and RFC 7471. Those mechanisms remain attributed to the cited IGP documents. This classification makes no claim that Ze or a layer acting for it has implemented or verified them. | It is assumed that the IGP instances originating these TLVs will support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. |
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 8571, so its obligations are stated where they were written.