Back to matrix

S04-PI: Yes

Rationale

PRP Architecture sections 5.4–5.6 place authority in local relationship policy or explicit delegation and require operation from sufficient local relationship information without a mandatory global naming, routing, identity, governance or ledger service. The selected known-peer profile does not add an external service. Participants can therefore administer the necessary policy, keys and communication infrastructure themselves.

Assessment method

Documentary review; no new sleep, load or network execution

Source context

Pinned PRP architecture/lifecycle and primary IP RFCs; retained bytes, 2026-10-15

Outstanding qualification

Documentary capability, not proof of global routing completion or deployed implementation maturity. The selected private IPv4/UDP underlay can also be locally administered; public Internet allocation and access remain separate.

Public sources

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4193.html
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200.html

Editorial evidence references

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

• round247-sources.json
• round247-sources.json