Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F37-PI: Yes

Rationale

The author confirms that PRP control-plane denials include saturation and identify the affected point on the trajectory. Each endpoint negotiates priority and traffic with participants up to the rendezvous, enabling control directed at the reported segment; each aggregator also schedules packets autonomously with reserved control-plane capacity. Together these supply localized feedback and the ability to adjust traffic under the revised F37. Credit is architectural and does not depend on a new wire command or an intermediate aggregate controller.

Assessment method

Author-attributed architectural capability; no runtime test

Source context

Protocol-author clarifications and approved criterion reformulation, 2026-10-25

Outstanding qualification

Author-confirmed architecture, with verbatim statements retained in round647-sources.json. No particular encoding, scheduling algorithm, automatic controller, queue-disposal rule, response time or validated implementation is inferred. Reserved control capacity is not an unconditional guarantee under arbitrary overload. Each endpoint controls its half up to the rendezvous. For PRP over IP the mechanism concerns participating PRP adjacencies, not congestion localization or capacity reservation at every underlying IP router.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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