Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F20-PI: Yes

Rationale

Asked whether independent final relationships may share a transit forwarding entry or each must have its own, the PRP owner clarified that the client autonomously chooses. Shared forwarding state is therefore an architectural option; a separate entry per final relationship is not mandatory. F20 tests whether transit can forward without mandatory per-end-to-end-flow or circuit state, not whether every client selects that mode.

Assessment method

Architectural capability clarification; no implementation execution

Source context

Direct PRP owner clarification, editorial conversation, 2026-10-16; existing architecture/state decomposition

Outstanding qualification

Architectural owner clarification, not a runtime or scalability result. Clients may choose separate state. Neighbor sessions, aggregate routes and endpoint relationship/session state remain permitted and are not claimed to disappear. The clarification does not specify allocator keys, reference counting or teardown behavior; these remain implementation/documentation details to verify, without inferring that closing one relationship disrupts or preserves another in an existing build. No security, global-capacity or constant-memory claim follows.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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