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 9319 - The Use of maxLength in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 9319, 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
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
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 (foundation), 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
The 8 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 4 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 |
| 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 | 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 | No row in the public ledger |
| Enrolment | Not enrolled (foundation) |
| Requirements | 11 |
| Gated MUST-level | 4 |
| Not applicable, so out of scope | 4 |
| 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/rfc9319.md |
| Requirement shard | rfc/requirements/rfc9319.md |
| RFC text | rfc/full/rfc9319.txt |
Enrolment
Not enrolled (foundation, the document defines, registers or describes, and obliges no implementer, so there is no implementation anywhere for a gate to hold): A Best Current Practice addressed to operators and ROA issuers rather than to a router.
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 9319.
Coverage
| Bucket | Count | What it counts |
|---|---|---|
| Positive and negative tests | 0 | one part of the gated population |
| Annotated (including scoped evidence) | 4 | 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 |
| Partial proof; remaining gap (subset of annotated; zero whole-requirement credit) | 0 | an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in |
| Evidence that runs nightly only | 0 | an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in |
| Derived from other rows | 0 | outside the gated population: each asserts nothing and derives its state from the rows it names, which the parts above already count |
| Gated MUST-level requirements | 4 | every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above |
Annotated (including scoped evidence) (4): RFC9319-5-1, RFC9319-5-2, RFC9319-5-3, RFC9319-6-1
Requirements
| Requirement | Level | Section | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|
RFC9319-5-1 | Operators that implement these recommendations and have existing ROAs published in the RPKI system MUST perform a review of such objects, especially where they make use of the maxLength attribute, to ensure that the set of included prefixes is "minimal" with respect to the current BGP origination and routing policies. (§5) | ||
| MUST | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: Directed at RPKI OPERATORS who create and manage ROAs. Ze is an RPKI Relying Party: it consumes Validated ROA Payloads received over RTR (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/roa_cache.go, aspa_cache.go "received via RTR") and validates route origins against them, including the maxLength bound (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/validate.go:45), but it never issues, publishes, or reviews ROAs. The ROA-review obligation has no applicable code path in Ze. |
|
RFC9319-5-2 | Published ROAs MUST be replaced as necessary (§5) | ||
| MUST | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: Directed at the operator/CA that publishes ROAs. Ze issues and publishes no ROAs -- it maintains only a read-only VRP cache populated from RTR (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/roa_cache.go). Replacing published ROAs is a ROA-issuer action that a Relying Party does not perform. |
|
RFC9319-5-3 | Such an exercise MUST be repeated whenever the operator makes changes to either policy. (§5) | ||
| MUST | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: An operator review-cadence obligation for a ROA issuer. Ze issues no ROAs and holds no origination/routing-policy-driven ROA set to re-review; as a Relying Party it only re-validates its own received routes when the VRP cache changes (RFC 6811 Section 4, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/origin_tracker.go), which is governed by RFC 6811, not this operator BCP. |
|
RFC9319-6-1 | * Operators providing a means for operators of neighboring autonomous systems to advertise RTDR routes via BGP MUST NOT make the creation of non-minimal ROAs a pre-requisite for its use. (§6) | ||
| MUST NOT | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test{not-applicable}: Directed at operators PROVIDING Route Origin Validation (RTDR) filtering as a service. Ze provides no RTDR filtering service to third parties and gates no feature on the creation of non-minimal ROAs; it only validates its own received routes against the VRP set it consumes (RFC 6811, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/validate.go). There is no code path in Ze that could impose a non-minimal-ROA pre-requisite. |
|
RFC9319-5-4 | Operators SHOULD use minimal ROAs whenever possible. A minimal ROA contains only those IP prefixes that are actually originated by an AS in BGP and no other IP prefixes. (§5) | ||
| SHOULD | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-5-5 | In general, operators SHOULD avoid using the maxLength attribute in their ROAs, since its inclusion will usually make the ROA non- minimal. (§5) | ||
| SHOULD | 5 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-5.1-1 | In this case, the ROA SHOULD only include: (1) the set of IP prefixes that are always originated in BGP, and (2) the set of IP prefixes that are sometimes, but not always, originated in BGP. (§5.1) | ||
| SHOULD | 5.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-5.1-2 | The ROA SHOULD NOT include any IP prefixes that the operator knows will not be originated in BGP. (§5.1) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 5.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-5.1-3 | In general, the ROA SHOULD NOT make use of the maxLength attribute unless doing so has no impact on the set of included prefixes. (§5.1) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 5.1 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-6-2 | Operators SHOULD NOT create non-minimal ROAs (by either creating additional ROAs or using the maxLength attribute) for the purpose of advertising RTDR routes (§6) | ||
| SHOULD NOT | 6 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
RFC9319-7-1 | This document recommends that designers and/or providers of such user interfaces SHOULD provide warnings to draw the user's attention to the risks of creating non-minimal ROAs in general and using the maxLength attribute in particular. (§7) | ||
| SHOULD | 7 | positive
no testno positive testnegative
no testno negative test |
|
Gaps and untested MUSTs
| Requirement | State | Reason |
|---|---|---|
RFC9319-5-1 Operators that implement these recommendations and have existing ROAs published in the RPKI system MUST perform a review of such objects, especially where they make use of the maxLength attribute, to ensure that the set of included prefixes is "minimal" with respect to the current BGP origination and routing policies. (§5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Directed at RPKI OPERATORS who create and manage ROAs. Ze is an RPKI Relying Party: it consumes Validated ROA Payloads received over RTR (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/roa_cache.go, aspa_cache.go "received via RTR") and validates route origins against them, including the maxLength bound (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/validate.go:45), but it never issues, publishes, or reviews ROAs. The ROA-review obligation has no applicable code path in Ze. |
RFC9319-5-2 Published ROAs MUST be replaced as necessary (§5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Directed at the operator/CA that publishes ROAs. Ze issues and publishes no ROAs -- it maintains only a read-only VRP cache populated from RTR (internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/roa_cache.go). Replacing published ROAs is a ROA-issuer action that a Relying Party does not perform. |
RFC9319-5-3 Such an exercise MUST be repeated whenever the operator makes changes to either policy. (§5) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: An operator review-cadence obligation for a ROA issuer. Ze issues no ROAs and holds no origination/routing-policy-driven ROA set to re-review; as a Relying Party it only re-validates its own received routes when the VRP cache changes (RFC 6811 Section 4, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/origin_tracker.go), which is governed by RFC 6811, not this operator BCP. |
RFC9319-6-1 * Operators providing a means for operators of neighboring autonomous systems to advertise RTDR routes via BGP MUST NOT make the creation of non-minimal ROAs a pre-requisite for its use. (§6) |
no test | no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Directed at operators PROVIDING Route Origin Validation (RTDR) filtering as a service. Ze provides no RTDR filtering service to third parties and gates no feature on the creation of non-minimal ROAs; it only validates its own received routes against the VRP set it consumes (RFC 6811, internal/component/bgp/plugins/rpki/validate.go). There is no code path in Ze that could impose a non-minimal-ROA pre-requisite. |
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.
RFC9319-5-1
Operators that implement these recommendations and have existing ROAs published in the RPKI system MUST perform a review of such objects, especially where they make use of the maxLength attribute, to ensure that the set of included prefixes is "minimal" with respect to the current BGP origination and routing policies. (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC9319-5-1, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC9319-5-2
Published ROAs MUST be replaced as necessary (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC9319-5-2, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC9319-5-3
Such an exercise MUST be repeated whenever the operator makes changes to either policy. (§5)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC9319-5-3, so no unit is bound to it.
RFC9319-6-1
* Operators providing a means for operators of neighboring autonomous systems to advertise RTDR routes via BGP MUST NOT make the creation of non-minimal ROAs a pre-requisite for its use. (§6)
Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests
No test carries RFC9319-6-1, so no unit is bound to it.
Extraction sign-off
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reviewer | claude |
| Signed off | 2026-09-21 |
| Register | rfc2119 |
| Source | rfc/full/rfc9319.txt |
| Source fingerprint | 0b377f370cf81004 |
| Record | rfc/extraction/rfc9319.json |
| Mapped sentences | 4 |
| Declined as scope | 0 |
| Relocated to a spec, which Ze OWES | 0 |
| Unclassified | 0 |
Sections
| Section | Name | Sites | Disposition | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
front |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
1.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
3 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
4 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5 |
not stated | 3 | walked | not stated |
5.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
5.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
6 |
not stated | 1 | walked | not stated |
7 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
8 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
9 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
10 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
11 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
11.1 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
11.2 |
not stated | 0 | walked | not stated |
Excluded sentences
The walk over RFC 9319 declined no sentence: every site it found is mapped to a requirement.
Superseded
No document obsoletes RFC 9319, so its obligations are stated where they were written.