Participant Relationship Protocol

Back to matrix

F38-PI: Yes

Rationale

The author states that each PRP aggregator sees its own adjacencies and transiting clients. Each adjacency represents an interface with control-plane priority, and transiting participants can negotiate access priorities within its resource budget. Together with previously clarified autonomous adjacency scheduling, this establishes local resource administration and negotiated access/priority conditions at each aggregator without requiring a uniform policy along the complete trajectory. The architectural Yes credits independent transport scopes, not an inferred nested-domain service.

Assessment method

Author-attributed architectural capability; no runtime test

Source context

Protocol-author clarification and approved F38 reformulation, 2026-10-25

Outstanding qualification

Direct author clarification, preserved in round649-sources.json; no new normative wire or executable qualification. Negotiation operates within the available budget and accepted agreements; it does not imply that every requested priority is granted. No scheduler, numerical QoS guarantee, topology-hiding guarantee or arbitrary override of existing obligations is inferred. PRP over IP credits participating PRP aggregators and their budgets, not administrative control over unrelated IP transit infrastructure. Independent HS2 and implementation gates are unchanged.

Public sources

Editorial evidence references

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