Transaction scheme

The most serious problem with defining the service of a signature scheme (or any cryptologic transaction scheme) at a user interface is that a service can only be offered by a system consisting of both entities and coimections. The intuitive idea... 

For each transaction type, a list type may be prescribed that defines how many access points of each type may be involved. For authentication and dispute, which are 2- and 3-party protocols, these types are clear. Very generally, one can define once and for all a set Listjtypes and a function type of that maps lists to their type. Then, for each transaction scheme, one can define a function permitted connections that maps each transaction type to a set of permitted list types. However, general restrictions related to the number of user access points that take part have to be made. 

For cryptologic transaction schemes in general, one can distinguish the behaviour within and between transactions. Here, the assumptions from Section 5.1.2, Time and Transactions , and the definition of valid inputs have simplified this considerably it only remains to be required that every valid input at some access point is followed by an output at this access point within reasonable time. The interest group consists of this access point alone. This means that the access point returns to a state where the user can input commands for new transactions even if all the partners in the current transaction behave incorrectly. 

These minimal structural requirements, called locality, are described in a little more detail in Section 5.3.1. Similar requirements would be made on general cryptologic transaction schemes, such as secrecy, payment, and credential schemes. Section 5.3.2 describes additional structural properties that characterize special classes of... 

This section describes degrees of security. A short overview was already given in Sections 4.4.5 to 4.4.7. A degree of security is primarily defined for one scheme and one requirement, not for a complete specification. It is characterized by the attackers that are tolerated and the notion of fulfilling the requirement. Most of this section can be used for all cryptologic transaction schemes. 

In contrast to Sections 5.2 and 5.3, there are no special subsections for minimal and stronger security properties. The criteria introduced in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 are almost identical for all signature schemes (and many other cryptologic transaction schemes), and Section 5.4.3 is a classification all over. 

Yeo, I. K., Kim, H. J. (2003a). Modified patchwork algorithm The novel audio watermarking scheme. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 11, 381-386. 

C. Rago, P. Willett, and Y. Bar-Shalom, Censoring sensors A low communication-rate scheme for distributed detection , IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 554-568, April 1996. 

Another alternative is for the architecture to support an exception/transaction abort scheme. This approach could be described using the techniques for describing exceptions in Chapter 8. 

Weickert J, ter Haar Romeny B and Viergever MA 1998 Efficient and reliable schemes for nonlinear diffusion filtering. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 7(3), 398-410. 

X. Zhang, M.M. Polycarpou, and T. Parisini. A robust detection and isolation scheme for abrupt and incipient faults in nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47 576-593, 2002. 

Tolbert L M etal., 2002, Charge Balance Control Schemes for Cascade Multilevel Converter in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 49(5), 1058-1064. 

Mills, A.F., 1999, Basic Heat and Mass Transfer, 2", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, p 22 Mudawar, I., 2001, Assessment of High-Heat-Flux Thermal Management Schemes , IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Part A, Vol. 24 (2), pp.122-141 Bar-Cohen, A., 1993, Thermal Management of Electronic Components With Dielectric Liquids , JSME Int. J., Ser. B, Vol.36, pp.1-25... 

Mudawar, I. 2001, Assessment of High-Heat-Flux Thermal Management Schemes, IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies, Vol. 24 (2), pp.122-141. 

Health vouchers are a specific type of demand-side subsidy. They have certain advantages over other types of demand-side subsidies, but they often entail higher transactions costs. In deciding whether to use a voucher scheme to deliver subsidies, policymakers must determine whether the ability to deliver subsidies more efficiently or effectively outweighs the additional administrative costs. They must also consider some of the limitations of vouchers. 

Voucher schemes can be administratively onerous compared with traditional supply-side subsidies, and there are significant transaction costs associated with negotiating and monitoring contracts. A detailed discussion of this topic appears in chapter 5. 

The expectations of market players and eventual outcomes in relation to micro level allocation plans for the second phase will have considerable impact on the functioning of the market for CO2 allowances and therefore the success or failure of the scheme. The updating of allocation plans required by the Directive takes away an underlying assumption of most economic assessments of emission trading schemes, i.e. that distribution does not affect efficiency unless transaction costs are high. Updated allocation plans have the effect of altering the abatement and production choices made by participants. Where participants believe that the base years in future allocation plans will be updated there is an incentive to increase emissions. The uncertainty as to whether or not this will happen in the second NAPs is likely to result in increased volatility and illiquidity (wider bid-offer spreads)... 

Without a doubt, small installations will need to be part of a successful emissions trading scheme in the longer run. In the medium term, the obvious burden for small installations deriving from the high transaction costs in relation to relatively low environmental benefits needs to be eased. Yet, the ultimate solution presented above presumes that the system eventually becomes more comprehensive, covering other sectors also. In order to partially resolve the problem of small installations in the shorter term, a judicious opt-out provision might be a promising... 

Transactions are not made explicit in the formalization They are only used in didactic comments, whereas formal statements deal with interface events individually. However, if one defined more than only signature schemes, formalizing transactions might save some work. 

Transactions at disjoint sets of access points can be carried out in parallel. With global synchronism, where each message sent arrives in the next round, the simplification is not too unrealistic, because the entities participating in a transaction are kept quite busy and transactions terminate quickly. With more realistic models of time, one would have to permit overlapping transactions at a single access point. However, this would introduce many standard tasks of multi-processing into signature schemes, which is of no use in a classification. 

Three types of transactions are common to all signature schemes. 

The requirement of the recipient on disputes Once a recipient has accepted a certain message as authenticated by a certain signer (in an authentication transaction), he should win disputes about that message in court. The only exception is with schemes like invisible signature schemes, where disputes only work if the signer cooperates. 

The general definition should contain few transactions, because any transaction included here has to be offered by all schemes, i.e., they have to react on the corresponding input events in a way prescribed by the minimal requirements. Adding more transactions as special service properties is discussed in Section 5.2.11. 

A signature-like scheme vrith accountable centres (a special case of accountable third parties) has the usual three roles and an arbitrary number of others, which are collectively called centres. (For the same reasons as in Section 5.1.2, Granularity of Entities , combinations like centre and court and centre and recipient are not considered separately.) The three common transactions are adapted as follows. 

Instead, one could also fix v once and for all, e.g., one could define that the message space of all signature schemes were the set of all bit strings. As the opposite extreme, one could make V an input parameter, e.g., in initialization or in a global transaction at the system start. But in both cases, that should have been done in Section 5.2.4 already. 

The domains of the parameters idsp (Item d)) have not been given names yet, because a signature scheme may restrict some of these parameters in relation to others and to the actual participants in transactions. For concreteness, it is assumed that any subset other than Any is described by an enumeration of its elements, i.e., the domains are subsets of the power set T(Jdf. If the relations between the parameters were fixed once and for all, they could be formulated in the requirements and all the domains could be Idp>). However, it is more general to treat these relations as specification parameters, i.e., the designers of signature schemes can choose what relations their schemes support. 

Now, valid inputs are defined. Inputs are invahd if they are ignored because they try to start a new transaction before the previous transaction at the same access point has ended (see Section 5.1.2). All transactions described so far, and all those that will be added for special classes of signature schemes, have exactly one input and one output at each access point concerned. Hence an input is valid if there has been no other input since the last output or since the start of the system. This is expressed as follows ... 

Furthermore, the fact that validity of the signer s input was required means that the schemes must ignore commands to sign before other transactions have ended. One might weaken this. 

One can also use formulas that prescribe an upper bound on the number of rounds after which an output occurs. This solves both problems mentioned above. However, in some schemes the number of rounds needed for a transaction depends... 

A problem that cannot be avoided by the signature scheme is that someone swamps other users outside the system, e.g., courts, with so much work that they can no longer perform the necessary work. However, as an explicit command from each transaction partner is needed in every transaction, no attack of this kind can happen inside the system. 

The first type of additional service properties is that some signature schemes fulfil stronger versions of the requirements on the results of the three common transactions, in particular disputes. 

If one wants to stop the whole system after an output broken and convince many people that this was necessary, it should be possible to transfer the knowledge that the scheme has been broken. (Otherwise, the signer and the recipient would have to repeat the dispute in front of everybody.) This property is called transferability of proofs of forgery. There is an additional transaction called transfer of a proof of forgery between two courts. The court that wants to transfer the knowledge enters transfer proof, and the other court enters test proof and obtains an output acc 6 broken , not broken There are two additional requirements ... 

As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, several signature schemes offer more than the three common transactions. The interface events and corresponding requirements of important ones occurring in practice are now presented. 

---