Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F36-PI: Yes

Rationale

The protocol author explicitly confirms client negotiation of capacity, QoS and bandwidth reservation with the aggregators up to the rendezvous, with the opposite client negotiating its own half. Requested transport quality therefore participates in the agreed allocation of transport resources rather than only in packet priority marking. This supports architectural Yes for the selected PRP composition, using the same documentary capability level as the RINA assessment.

Assessment method

Author clarification and scoped local specification review; documentary capability, no execution test

Source context

Author clarification preserved in round581; inspected prp-spec working documents pinned in round646-sources.json

Outstanding qualification

Credit rests on the preserved author clarification in round581-sources.json, not a new executable or wire qualification. Each side negotiates its own half. Application API, rejection/counteroffer mapping, atomic reservation, capacity accounting and stale-agreement handling remain profile obligations; no numerical QoS guarantee or completed implementation is inferred. For PRP over IP, this is PRP-layer resource negotiation and does not reserve capacity in unparticipating IP routers.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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