Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F15-PN: Yes

Rationale

PRP admission separates public control requests from admitted HS2 processing. In the pinned runtime, configured peer policy, challenge/proof verification and replay consumption precede run_hs2_admitted. The proof-of-work admission policy raises requester cost. Pending/reassembly state has global and per-peer caps, a byte budget and expiry; authenticated relationship policy supplies the separate authorization boundary. Together these provide admission and bounded pre-admission state, satisfying the architectural criterion.

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 the configured admission policy, not the existence of a separate control-plane label alone. Receiving, parsing, challenge replies and proof reassembly still consume resources; peer-context creation and fair scheduling need separate qualification. The retained 0x0202 fixture does not prove every carrier integration or a minimum legitimate throughput. Work factor and budgets are local policy, not universal constants. 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.