Output Phase Sample Clauses

Output Phase. Here the (honest) parties in CORE propagate the common message held by them (which they have received from S) to all other (honest) parties in P \ CORE. Informally, in Distribution Phase, S sends his message m to every party in . In Verification & Agreement on CORE Phase, party Pi on receiving a message, say mi from S, computes n hash values of mi corresponding to n distinct random hash keys, say ri1, . . . , rin chosen from F. To enable Pj to check whether his received message mj is same as ▇▇’s received message mi, party Pi privately sends rij and ij = κ(mi, rij) to Pj. Party Pj, on receiving these values from Pi checks whether ij = κ(mj, rij) (for honest S and Pi, it should hold). ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇-A-casts a confirmation signal OK(Pj, Pi) if the above check passes. Now based on the confirmation signals, a graph with the parties in as vertex set is formed and applying Find-STAR on the graph, an (n, t)-star ( , ) is obtained. The ( , ) is then agreed among all the parties and component of it is taken as CORE. The protocols for Distribution Phase and Verification & Agreement on CORE Phase are given below. Before outlining Output Phase, we prove Lemma 1-3.
Output Phase. Here the parties in Pe′x help the parties in P \Pe′x (not P′ \ Pe′x) to learn the common l/t message m held by the honest parties in Pe′x. After this phase, current segment terminates with common output m∗α and the parties proceed to the computation of next segment. The implementation of this phase is very similar to the implementation of the Output Phase of [21] and the Claiming Stage of the BA protocol of [15]. Now the overall structure of Optimal-ABA is presented below. Protocol Optimal-ABA(P) Code for Pi: Every party in P executes this code. 1. Set n' = n, t' = t and P' = P. Initialize α = 1. 2. While α ≤ t, do the following for segment Sα with input miα and with n', t' and P' to agree on m∗α:
Output Phase. Same as protocol Output in Optimal-A-cast with t being replaced by t', l being replaced by Æ . Moreover, CORE contains 2t' + 1 parties and CORE = 9 \ CORE.
Output Phase. The segment failure may occur only in first phase and hence only the first phase of a segment may be repeated several times (bounded by t); once the first phase is successful for a segment, the segment will always be successfully completed after robustly executing second phase.
Output Phase. The segment failure may occur only in the second phase and hence only the first two phases of a segment may be repeated several times (bounded by t); once the first two phases are successful for a segment, the segment will always be successfully completed after robustly executing the third phase. So at the end of segment α, every honest party will t agree on a common A bits, denoted by m∗α. Moreover if the honest parties start with common input (i.e. miα’s are equal for all honest parties), then m∗α will be same as that common input. t
Output Phase. Here the parties in CORE help the parties in P \ CORE (not P' \ CORE) to learn the common l/t message m∗α held by the honest parties in CORE. After this phase, current segment terminates with common output m∗α and the parties proceed to the computation of next segment. The purpose and the implementation of this phase is almost identical to the Output Phase of Optimal-A-cast. Now the overall structure of Optimal-ABA is as follows: Code for Pi: Protocol Optimal-ABA(P) 1. Set n' = n, t' = t and 9' = 9. 2. For each segment Sα with input miα (α = 1, . . . , t) do the following with current n', t' and 9' to agree on m∗α: 1. Verification & Agreement on CORE Phase: (a) Generation of K/Generation of CORE in case of Failure: Replicate Code-I (presented later). (b) CORE Generation by expanding K to contain 2t' +1 parties: Replicate Code-II (presented later).
Output Phase. Output 1 if and only if Verify(pp, {vk1, . . . , vkn}, m′, σ′) = 1 and m′ =ƒ m. (a) A chooses a subset S ⊆ [n] \ I such that |S ∪ I| < n/3. It also chooses messages m and Definition 3.4 (Unforgeability). Let t < n/3. An SRDS scheme Π is t-unforgeable with a bulletin- board PKI (resp., with a trusted PKI) if for mode = bb-pki (resp., mode = tr-pki) and for every (stateful) PPT adversary A it holds that Expt Pr forge mode,Π,A (κ, n, t) = 1 ≤ negl(κ, n). mode,Π,A The experiment Exptforge is defined in Figure 3. We note that as described, the security definition is only for one-time signatures. Although this is sufficient for our applications in Section 4, it is possible to extend the definition and provide the adversary an oracle access to signatures of honest parties on messages of its choice. However, in that case, the adversary must choose the set S before getting oracle access.

Related to Output Phase

  • Production Phase contract period in which the Development and the Production are to be performed.

  • Design Phase All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement with the exception of Interdisciplinary Document Coordination Review, conducting a Card Trick session, Value-Engineering services, Estimating services. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement. • All Basic Services set forth in the Agreement.

  • Construction Phase Services 3.1.1 – Basic Construction Services

  • Development Phase contractual phase initiated with the approval of ANP for the Development Plan and which is extended during the Production Phase while investments in ▇▇▇▇▇, equipment, and facilities for the Production of Oil and Gas according to the Best Practices of the Oil Industry are required.

  • Design Development Phase 1.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents, model(s) and any adjustments to the Program of Requirements, BIM Execution Plan or Amount Available for the Construction Contract authorized by the Owner, the Architect/Engineer shall prepare, for approval by the Owner and review by the Construction Manager, Design Development Documents derived from the model(s) in accordance with Owner’s written requirements to further define and finalize the size and character of the Project in accordance with the BIM Execution Plan, “Facility Design Guidelines” and any additional requirements set forth in Article 15. The Architect/Engineer shall review the Design Development documents as they are being modeled at intervals appropriate to the progress of the Project with the Owner and Construction Manager at the Project site or other location specified by Owner in the State of Texas. The Architect/Engineer shall utilize the model(s) to support the review process during Design Development. The Architect/Engineer shall allow the Construction Manager to utilize the information uploaded into Owner’s PMIS to assist the Construction Manager in fulfilling its responsibilities to the Owner. 1.3.2 As a part of Design Development Phase, Architect/Engineer shall accomplish model coordination, aggregation and “clash detection” to remove conflicts in design between systems, structures and components. Architect/Engineer shall utilize Owner’s PMIS to accomplish model coordination and collaborate with Construction Manager in the resolution of critical clashes identified by the Construction Manager. Architect/Engineer shall demonstrate and provide written assurance to Owner that conflicts/collisions between models have been resolved. 1.3.3 The Architect/Engineer shall review the Estimated Construction Cost prepared by the Construction Manager, and shall provide written comments. 1.3.4 Before proceeding into the Construction Document Phase, the Architect/Engineer shall obtain Owner’s written acceptance of the Design Development documents and approval of the mutually established Amount Available for the Construction Contract and schedule. 1.3.5 The Architect/Engineer shall prepare presentation materials including an animation derived from the model(s) as defined in “Facility Design Guidelines” at completion of Design Development and if so requested shall present same to the Board of Regents at a regular meeting where scheduled within the state. 1.3.6 The Architect/Engineer shall prepare preliminary recommended furniture layouts for all spaces where it is deemed important to substantiate the fulfillment of program space requirements, or to coordinate with specific architectural, mechanical and electrical elements. 1.3.7 Architect/Engineer shall assist the Owner, if requested, with seeking approval of the Project by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Such assistance shall include (i) the preparation of a listing of the rooms and square footages in the Project, and (ii) the preparation of project cost information, in accordance with THECB Guidelines. This information shall be provided at the completion of the Design Development Phase when requested by the Owner. The listing of rooms and square footages shall then be updated to reflect any changes occurring during construction and provided to the Owner at Substantial Completion. 1.3.8 At the completion of the Design Development Phase, or such other time as Owner may specify to Architect/Engineer, at Owner’s sole option and discretion, Owner will furnish Architect/Engineer with a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal prepared by Construction Manager based upon the Design Development documents prepared by the Architect/Engineer and approved by the Owner. The Architect/Engineer shall assist the Owner and endeavor to further and advocate the Owner’s interests in Owner’s communications with the Construction Manager in an effort to develop a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal acceptable to Owner, in Owner’s sole option and discretion. If the Owner does not accept the Construction Manager’s Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal, the Architect/Engineer shall participate with the Owner and Construction Manager in constructability reviews and shall revise the documents as necessary in order to reach an agreement. If the Construction Manager’s Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal exceeds the Schematic Design Phase Estimated Construction Cost prepared by, or otherwise accepted by the Construction Manager due to an increase in the scope of the Project caused by further development of the design documents by the Architect/Engineer to the extent that such could not be reasonably inferred by the Construction Manager from the Schematic Design documents, and Owner directs Architect/Engineer to revise the documents, the Architect/Engineer shall revise the documents at its own expense so that the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal for constructing the Project shall not exceed the Owner’s Amount Available for the Construction Contract and any previously approved Estimated Construction Costs. If it is determined to be in the Owner’s best interest, instead of requiring the Architect/Engineer to revise the Drawings and Specifications, the Owner reserves the right to accept a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that exceeds the stipulated Amount Available for the Construction Contract. The Architect/Engineer shall analyze the final Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal document, together with its supporting assumptions, clarifications, and contingencies, and shall submit a detailed written analysis of the document to the Owner. Such analysis shall include, without limitation, reference to and explanation of any inaccurate or improper assumptions and clarifications. The A/E will not be required to make revisions to the documents at its own expense under the provisions of this paragraph if the Owner’s rejection of the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal is not due to a failure of the A/E to provide the services otherwise required herein. 1.3.9 After the Guaranteed Maximum Price has been accepted, the Architect/Engineer shall incorporate necessary revisions into the Design Development documents. The A/E will not be required to make revisions to the documents at its own expense under the provisions of this paragraph if the revisions are required as the result of inaccurate assumptions and clarifications made in the development of the Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that are not due to a failure of the A/E to provide the services otherwise required herein.