F15-HP: Yes
Rationale
HIPv2 defines responder puzzles, precomputable R1 replies and delayed association-state creation. Puzzle verification precedes expensive continuation of the base exchange; responder policy can reject requests. This directly addresses unsolicited setup work and state at the HIP responder boundary.
Assessment method
Primary specification and source analysis; experiments are complementary
Source context
Selected-profile primary sources and retained source traces; owner-approved F15 reformulation
Outstanding qualification
Credit RFC 7401 sections 4.1.1–4.1.5 and 6.6 ordering, with a nontrivial puzzle policy when used for work admission. Initial reception and R1 replies have costs; solved puzzles are not application authorization. No complete HIPv2 build, protection of all IP ingress, or measured availability is inferred. Quantitative service preservation under bounded attacks is complementary validation, not a prerequisite for this architectural criterion. Historical round145 and later experimental records retain their original scope; they are not new pass/fail results under this definition. F15 now assesses CPU/state protection only. Network-capacity authorization is separate in F26; a response-byte cap by itself does not establish this F15 result.
Public sources
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round445.html
- round445-sources.json
- round446.html