The Protocol Sample Clauses

The Protocol. The protocol can be formally speci ed by an e ciently computable function

The Protocol. CoCoA and Partial Updates

The Protocol. Based on Scheme 1 and the n-DHI assumption, we formulate a two-party key agreement protocol that is secure in the AM. The proof of the security is in fact very similar to the proof of Theorem 8 in [8]. The established session key is often required as a binary string. Since we have no requirements for the representations of the algebras, we assume that for any particular representation of an algebra A, there is an injective public function B that maps elements of the algebra to binary strings. This function can be used to derive a valid session key. Protocol 1. Common information: a member (Ak, Bk, Kk) from a family of algebras and homomorphisms An → B and an injective function B : Bk → {0, 1}∗. Step 1: The principal Pi on input (Pi, Pj, s, initiator) • randomly samples a sequence (a1, a2, . . . , an) of distinct elements of Ak such that Ak is generated by these elements, • randomly samples a homomorphism α ∈ Kk, • computes α(a1), α(a2), . . . , α(an), • transmits (Pi, Pj, s, (a1, α(a1)), (a2, α(a2)), . . . , (an, α(an))) to Pj. Step 2: After receiving (Pi, Pj, s, (a1, α(a1)), (a2, α(a2)), . . . , (an, α(an))), the responder Pj randomly applies the finitary operations of Bk on α(a1), α(a2), . . . , α(an) to obtain an element α(b), applies the corresponding sequence of operations of Ak on a1, a2, . . . , an • transmits (Pj, Pi, s, b) to Pi, • computes B(α(b)), • erases α(b), • outputs the session key B(α(b)) under the session identifier s. Step 3: After receiving (Pj, Pi, s, b), the principal Pi • computes B(α(b)), • outputs the session key B(α(b)) under the session identifier s.

The Protocol. The Corporation must issue a Verification Document to Xxx Xxx Wurrung members who propose to carry out any activities pursuant to an instrument referred to in item 1. The Verification Document must comply with the requirements in this Schedule 19. The Verification Document must be indelible and must be issued and administered by the Corporation. The Verification Document shall be sufficient to establish an individual’s entitlement to the terms and conditions of the Authorisation Orders and the Exemption and include the following details of the holder: name residential address date of birth; and a unique emblem or insignia of Xxx Xxx Wurrung membership. The Corporation agrees to maintain an accurate register of those Xxx Xxx Wurrung members to whom the Verification Document has been issued. When requested by Authorised Officers, the Corporation agrees to confirm, by reference to this register, whether or not an individual is the holder of the Verification Document. The State will respect the privacy of the members of the Xxx Xxx Wurrung and will comply with the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) and the Privacy Xxx 0000 (Cth). When an Authorised Officer encounters an individual asserting entitlement to access and use natural resources or carry out activities in accordance with an Authorisation Order or the Exemption, the Authorised Officer will verify the individual’s membership by inspecting the Verification Document. The Authorised Officer may act to ensure compliance with the Authorisation Order or the exemption. If the individual fails to produce the Verification Document to establish his or her entitlement under the Authorisation Orders or the Exemption, the Authorised Officer may act in accordance with his or her statutory duties. The State and the Corporation agree to review the operation of the verification protocol, when either Party requests this in writing.

The Protocol. The Protocol for the ShORe Trial (the “ShORe Protocol”) existing on the Effective Date is set forth on Schedule 2.2.1(a) hereto. The Protocol for the COAST Trial (the “COAST Protocol”) existing on the Effective Date is set forth on Schedule 2.2.1(b) hereto.

The Protocol. The protocol consists of executions of the Elect-Subcommittee protocol in each committee node C. Recall that each committee has size k = Θ(log8 n). Since processors participate in many such committees (both per layer, and across layers), messages sent between processors are annotated with the name of the committee node C whose election procedure the message contributes to. If a processor p receives a message from a processor p′, annotated with the committee node C, yet p′ ∈/ vp(C), then p simply disregards the message. P Initially, all processors have identical views of processor nodes in layer 0, and ⊥ ⊥

The Protocol. Research Site will conduct each Study in accordance with the applicable Protocol and in accordance with all Applicable Law. If any provisions of this Agreement and the Work Order conflict, this Agreement shall control. If a Work Order and a corresponding Protocol conflict, the terms of the Work Order shall govern; provided, however, that if the conflict relates to the protection of subjects, the Protocol shall govern.

The Protocol. Appendix A – Legislation Appendix B – Data Sharing Agreement Form Appendix C – Form completion guidance notes 1. Document Control Client Project Document Author Published Date Version East Herts Council Performance Management Data Sharing Protocol Trainee Performance Officer

The Protocol. 1.1. Undertakings of parties in relation to data sharing: 1.1.1. only process the Personal Data as necessary for the Agreed Purpose and, where it is not the Data Controller, act in accordance with the Data Controller’s reasonable written instructions from time to time in respect of the Personal Data; 1.1.2. keep all Personal Data confidential and take all appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security which is appropriate to the risks to individuals that may result from the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to it. Such measures may include, as appropriate, encryption, pseudonymisation, resilience of processing systems and the backing-up of Personal Data so that systems can be promptly reinstated; 1.1.3. provide a copy of any Subject Access Request to the party which is the Data Controller of that data within five working days and provide all reasonably necessary assistance to the Data Controller to enable it to deal with the request in accordance with data protection legislation; 1.1.4. promptly provide all reasonably necessary assistance to the Data Controller to enable it to deal with any communications from any supervisory authority (as defined in data protection legislation) relating to the Personal Data; 1.1.5. provide all reasonably necessary assistance to enable the Data Controller to comply with its obligations under data protection legislation including, without limitation, obligations relating to the security of personal data, the notification of breaches to any supervisory authority, the enforcement of rights by Data Subjects and the conduct of data protection impact assessments where required; 1.1.6. ensure that access to the Personal Data is limited to those persons who need to access the Personal Data for the Agreed Purpose (such as employees and volunteers collecting and working with the data as part of their contract with the Delivery Partner); 1.1.7. ensure that persons that may have access to the Personal Data are informed of the confidential nature of the Personal Data and have committed themselves to keeping it confidential by signing binding confidential undertakings in relation to the Personal Data, have undertaken training about GDPR, and are aware of the Data Processor’s duties and their personal duties and obligations under GDPR and this Protocol; 1.1.8. promptly remedy, at its own cost, any non-compliance with this Protocol or risks or threa...

The Protocol. Each party i distributes all messages Mi it re- ceived from s. Then all parties except s run Ph recursively to agree on Mi and form trust graphs based on the agreed Mi’s. Let n be the minimal number of parties for which the guarantee for Ph can fail. Then the agreement on Mi succeeds unless s is compliant and i faulty. Thus, the compliant parties always form a clique, and if s is not among them, the graphs are identical. Then each party with a path to Sm outputs m, or 0, if no such paths exist. The agreement can fail only if a path connects both Sm. As per Section 4.1, this contradicts 2f < kh. References [STOC] Proceedings of the Annual ACM Sym- posium on Theory of Computing. [1] X. Xxxxxxx. Local and Global Properties in Networks of Processors. [STOC], 1980. pp. 82-93.