Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

C06-CX: No

Rationale

No under the revised C06 criterion. RFC 8569 uses the Interest Name and optional restrictions for forwarding/PIT matching; responses match the request Name, and RFC 8609 places these fields in the visible Message TLV. The selected IPv4/UDP binding supplies no confidentiality for that message. For a distinctive exact-name request with no cache hit or aggregation, the same visible name links the exchange across the consumer-facing and responding producer-facing segments. Hop-local IP/UDP peers and pending-interest state do not replace that selector with protected adjacency-local names. This defeats the cross-segment association clause without inventing a source-address field or requiring authenticated consumer identity.

Assessment method

Primary packet definitions and pinned forwarding trace; bounded architectural counterexample, no runtime experiment

Source context

NDN packet v0.3, NFD 24.07, CCNx RFCs 8569 and 8609

Outstanding qualification

The bounded counterexample is an ordinary unaggregated request for a distinctive exact content name, absent from intermediate caches, answered by a live producer. An observer reads forwarding fields on the consumer-facing and producer-facing segments and matches that request and response across them. This uses visible protocol selectors, not payload fingerprints, timing, volume, diagnostic logs or access to every router mapping. It demonstrates a permitted case without association concealment; it does not claim that every repeated popular-name request can be uniquely linked. Content names are not inherently host or civil identities. Caching, aggregation, multiple publishers and replay can prevent attributing a response to the original signer or producer; those benefits do not make the selected composition conceal all such associations. A cache-hit exchange must be evaluated against the serving cache, not falsely attributed to the original publisher. No new anonymity wrapper or application profile is selected. CCNx has no NDN Nonce requirement: the finding uses the distinctive Name and matching rules, not a transferred NDN field. Optional KeyId/ContentObjectHash restrictions may narrow matching but are not needed for this counterexample. Producer signatures and CRC32C integrity do not conceal the selectors.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.