Asynchronous Information Checking Protocol (AICP) Clause Samples

Asynchronous Information Checking Protocol (AICP). An ICP is used for authenticating data in the presence of computationally unbounded corrupted parties. The notion of ICP was first introduced by ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. [26]. As described in [26, 8, 11], an ICP is executed among three parties: a Signer, an intermediary INT and a Verifier. Informally, an ICP con- sists of two stages, implemented by different protocol(s): – Signature-generation stage: it consists of two phases. In the first phase, Signer computes its IC (information checking) signature on a secret s F, denoted by ICSig( Signer, INT, Verifier, s) and hands it to INT. Signer also computes some verification information for Verifier and hands it to Verifier. In the second phase, INT (in co- operation with Signer and Verifier) confirms whether in- deed the received signature is a “valid” signature. – Signature-revelation stage: here INT reveals the signa- ture ICSig(Signer, INT, Verifier, s), claiming that it has received it from Signer. Verifier then verifies the sig- nature, using the verification information and either ac- cepts or rejects the signature (and hence s). An IC signature may be considered as the information-theo- retically secure variant of digital signatures. It provides pro- perties like unforgeability and non-repudiation; in addition, it provides information-theoretic security of the secret. That is, if Signer and INT are honest, then at the end of signature- generation stage, a corrupted Verifier does not learn any in- formation about s in the information-theoretic sense. We extend the notion of ICP in two directions: Firstly, we consider multiple verifiers, where each party in acts as a Verifier. Looking ahead, the multiple-verifier ICP con- cept readily fits in our AWC protocol; note that Signer and INT can be any two parties from the set . Secondly, instead of a single secret, we consider ICP that can deal with mul- tiple secrets concurrently; later this allows to achieve bet- ter communication complexity, than executing multiple in- stances of ICP, dealing with a single secret. Our ICP is exe- cuted in the asynchronous setting and thus we call it AICP. Definition 4 ((Multi-Verifier) Asynchronous Informatio n Checking Protocol (AICP)) An AICP involves three en- tities: a Signer , an intermediary INT and the set of parties acting as verifiers. The protocol is carried out in three phases, each implemented by a different sub-protocol:
View Source
Asynchronous Information Checking Protocol (AICP). An Information Checking Protocol (ICP) is used for authen- ticating data in the presence of computationally unbounded corrupted parties. The notion of ICP was first introduced by ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. [29]. As described in [29, 9, 12], an ICP is exe- cuted among three parties: a Signer, an intermediary INT and a Verifier. Informally, an ICP consists of two phases (where each phase is implemented by different protocol(s)): – Signature generation phase: here Signer computes his IC (information checking) signature on a secret s F, denoted by ICSig(Signer, INT, Verifier, s) and hands it to INT. Signer also computes some verification infor- mation and hands it to Verifier. – Signature revelation phase: here INT reveals the signa- ture ICSig(Signer, INT, Verifier, s), claiming that he has received it from Signer. Verifier then verifies the sig- nature, using the verification information and either ac- cepts or rejects the signature (and hence s). IC signature may be considered as the information theoret- ically secure substitute of traditional digital signatures. It provides the properties like unforgeability and non-repudiation; in addition, it also provides information theoretic security. That is, if Signer and INT are honest, then at the end of the signature generation phase, s remains secure in the informa- tion theoretic sense. We extend the above notion of ICP in two directions: First, we consider multiple verifiers, where each party in acts as a Verifier. This will be later helpful in using the ICP as a tool in our AWC protocol. It is important here to note that Signer and INT can be any two parties from the set . They just play their “special” role as Signer and INT. Sec- ond, instead of a single secret, we consider ICP that can deal with multiple secrets concurrently and thus achieves better communication complexity, than executing multiple instances of ICP, dealing with a single secret. Our ICP is ex- ecuted in the asynchronous settings and thus we call it AICP. We now formally define AICP. Definition 4 ((Multi-Verifier) Asynchronous Information Checking Protocol (AICP)) An AICP involves three enti- ties: a Signer , an intermediary INT and the set of n parties in acting as verifiers. The protocol is carried out in three phases (where each phase is implemented by a protocol):
View Source

Related to Asynchronous Information Checking Protocol (AICP)

  • Line Information Database (LIDB 9.1 BellSouth will store in its Line Information Database (LIDB) records relating to service only in the BellSouth region. The LIDB Storage Agreement is included in this Attachment as Exhibit C. 9.2 BellSouth will provide LIDB Storage upon written request to <<customer_name>>’s Account Manager stating a requested activation date.

  • Line Information Database 9.1 LIDB is a transaction-oriented database accessible through Common Channel Signaling (CCS) networks. For access to LIDB, e-Tel must purchase appropriate signaling links pursuant to Section 10 of this Attachment. LIDB contains records associated with End User Line Numbers and Special Billing Numbers. LIDB accepts queries from other Network Elements and provides appropriate responses. The query originator need not be the owner of LIDB data. LIDB queries include functions such as screening billed numbers that provides the ability to accept Collect or Third Number Billing calls and validation of Telephone Line Number based non-proprietary calling cards. The interface for the LIDB functionality is the interface between BellSouth’s CCS network and other CCS networks. LIDB also interfaces to administrative systems.

  • Voice Information Service Traffic ‌ 5.1 For purposes of this Section 5, (a) Voice Information Service means a service that provides [i] recorded voice announcement information or [ii] a vocal discussion program open to the public, and (b) Voice Information Service Traffic means intraLATA switched voice traffic, delivered to a Voice Information Service. Voice Information Service Traffic does not include any form of Internet Traffic. Voice Information Service Traffic also does not include 555 traffic or similar traffic with AIN service interfaces, which traffic shall be subject to separate arrangements between the Parties. Voice Information Service Traffic is not subject to Reciprocal Compensation charges under Section 7 of the Interconnection Attachment. 5.2 If a Talk America Customer is served by resold Verizon dial tone line Telecommunications Service, to the extent reasonably feasible, Verizon will route Voice Information Service Traffic originating from such Service to the appropriate Voice Information Service connected to Verizon’s network unless a feature blocking such Voice Information Service Traffic has been installed. For such Voice Information Service Traffic, Talk America shall pay to Verizon without discount any Voice Information Service provider charges billed by Verizon to Talk America. Talk America shall pay Verizon such charges in full regardless of whether or not Talk America collects such charges from its Customer. 5.3 Talk America shall have the option to route Voice Information Service Traffic that originates on its own network to the appropriate Voice Information Service connected to Verizon’s network. In the event Talk America exercises such option, Talk America will establish, at its own expense, a dedicated trunk group to the Verizon Voice Information Service serving switch. This trunk group will be utilized to allow Talk America to route Voice Information Service Traffic originated on its network to Verizon. For such Voice Information Service Traffic, unless Talk America has entered into a written agreement with Verizon under which Talk America will collect from Talk America’s Customer and remit to Verizon the Voice Information Service provider’s charges, Talk America shall pay to Verizon without discount any Voice Information Service provider charges billed by Verizon to Talk America. Talk America shall pay Verizon such charges in full regardless of whether or not Talk America collects such charges from its own Customer.

  • Service Information Pages Verizon shall include all VarTec NXX codes associated with the geographic areas to which each directory pertains, to the extent it does so for Verizon’s own NXX codes, in any lists of such codes that are contained in the general reference portion of each directory. VarTec’s NXX codes shall appear in such lists in the same manner as Verizon’s NXX information. In addition, when VarTec is authorized to, and is offering, local service to Customers located within the geographic area covered by a specific directory, at VarTec’s request, Verizon shall include, at no charge, in the “Customer Guide” or comparable section of the applicable alphabetical directories, VarTec’s critical contact information for VarTec’s installation, repair and Customer service, as provided by VarTec. Such critical contact information shall appear alphabetically by local exchange carrier and in accordance with Verizon’s generally applicable policies. VarTec shall be responsible for providing the necessary information to Verizon by the applicable close date for each affected directory.

  • Originating Switched Access Detail Usage Data A category 1101XX record as defined in the EMI Telcordia Practice BR-010-200- 010.