Background and Related Works Sample Clauses

Background and Related Works. After Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) were in- troduced in the 1970s, they were investigated in the literature due to their major functionality of exchanging data packets and providing a reliable byte stream service in [119] [120]. However, as discussed in Chapter 1, single-path transport protocols such as TCP, suffer from several efficiency-related issues, e.g. failure to support multihoming and bandwidth aggregation [121]. Due to this motivation, MPTCP was proposed to provide efficient data transmission in such environments [122]. Also, Stream Control Transport Protocol (SCTP) was developed to adapt multipath transmission [25]. Multipath protocols adapt fault tolerance, i.e differ- ent paths can be assigned for different tasks. For instance, the fast paths can be used for data transmission while the slow paths could be utilised for a backup process [14]. Moreover, it has been shown that the connection-level throughput region of multi-path routing/congestion control algorithms can be larger than that of a single-path congestion control scheme [123] [124]. Various studies have been proposed to develop multi-path routing/congestion control problem including the Host Identity Protocol and Mobile IP [125]. How- ever, these solutions usually have negative impacts on the congestion price, scheduling and the possible conflict with regular TCP for existing applications. The approaches to address the multipath congestion control issues can be divided into two major categories. First, the application-based approach, where software is developed and tested on an applied benchmark while neglecting the mathe- matical formulation, convergence and stability analysis of the algorithm. For instance, a Linux based software was developed in [122]. As another example, in [126], Xxx et al. proposed a fountain code based MPTCP algorithm and they report the validation of the algorithm through simulations. The main idea behind this algorithm is to use the random nature of fountain code in transmitting data through different subflows. Further, Xxxxx et al. introduce a cross layer design which benefits from the exchange information between MAC and transport layer [127]. This scheme takes into account path condition before data transfer. The paths are evaluated according to the Frame Error Rate (FER) method and the best path is considered first for transmission. This algorithm is verified over some simulation scenarios. In [128], a Reward and Penalize ...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Background and Related Works. Xxxxx [12] introduced the wiretap channel model, which provides an approach to secure communications without relying on classical cryptographic approaches. Xxxxx showed that if the channel between the sender and intended legitimate receiver is statistically better, i.e., less noisy, than the channel from the sender to the adversary, then perfect secrecy is possible. Xxxxxx [11], and Ahlswede and Csisza´r [13] considered the problem of secret-key generation using public discussion. In this setting, the two communicating parties observe correlated versions of a common random source. Based on these observations both parties want to agree on the same secret key. The key agreement problem in CPSs has traditionally been con- sidered to be an issue to be addressed separately from the control- theoretic/physical aspects of the underlying control systems. For example, Xxxx-Xxxx et al. [14] presented three cryptographic key- establishment protocols for resource constrained CPSs, including one constructed using isogeny-based cryptography, which makes it well- suited for the post-quantum computing scenario. Sutrala et al. [15] proposed a three-factor user authenticated key agreement protocol which achieves user anonymity and untraceability for 5G-enabled softwarized industrial CPSs. Xxxxx et al. [16] proposed a cross-layer key establishment model for wireless devices in CPSs, where wireless devices extract master keys at the physical layer using ambient wireless signals. Following an information-theoretic approach, Xxxxx et al. [17] studied the outage probability for secrecy rate in multiple- input multiple-output (MIMO) systems for CPSs. Although the above reviewed key-agreement solutions target CPSs’ applications, such approaches do not explicitly take any advantage of the peculiar underlying physical dynamics of these systems. In recent years, there has been an increased interest towards the use of the physical properties of the underling control systems to provide security. Similar to the role of information theory in physical layer security [18], control theory provides a framework for the study of this issue in CPSs. Xx et al. [19] presented a key establishment scheme for networked control systems, where they exploited the common information of the physical system state for the key establishment between the sensor and the controller. Since the sensors can observe changes in the system state which are caused by the controller actions, hence, the controller and th...
Background and Related Works. Chapter two will offer all the background and prerequisite information necessary for understanding the work in this thesis. We will also have a review of works related to the ones we investigate and propose in this thesis.

Related to Background and Related Works

  • Background 1.1. The “Work” is the research article, review article, letter, clinical trial study, report, article, or other copyright work, as identified in the Copyright Letter and further detailed in Schedule 1: Details of the Work (including such form of the copyright work submitted to Xxxxxxx Science for publication pursuant to clause 4, below), but excluding (except where context otherwise requires) any diagrams, figures or illustration specifically identified to Xxxxxxx Science pursuant to clause 3.2, below.

  • BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a federally-assisted program of State-selected projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Departments of Transportation have long worked as partners to deliver the FAHP in accordance with Federal requirements. In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress recognized the need to give the States more authority to carry out project responsibilities traditionally handled by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP, establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 106(g). This Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement sets forth the agreement between the FHWA and the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA and the State DOT with respect to Title 23 project approvals and related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities. The scope of FHWA responsibilities, and the legal authority for State DOT assumption of FHWA responsibilities, developed over time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation delegated responsibility to the Administrator of the FHWA for the FAHP under Title 23 of the United States Code, and associated laws. (49 CFR 1.84 and 1.85) The following legislation further outlines FHWA’s responsibilities: • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991; • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998; • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 (P.L. 112-141). The FHWA may not assign or delegate its decision-making authority to a State Department of Transportation unless authorized by law. Xxxxxxx 000 xx Xxxxx 00, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Code (Section 106), authorizes the State to assume specific project approvals. For projects that receive funding under Title 23, U.S.C., and are on the National Highway System (NHS) including projects on the Interstate System, the State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Title 23 for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections with respect to the projects unless the Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(1)) For projects under Title 23, U.S.C. that are not on the NHS, the State shall assume the responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections unless the State determines that such assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(2)) For all other project activities which do not fall within the specific project approvals listed in Section 106 or are not otherwise authorized by law, the FHWA may authorize a State DOT to perform work needed to reach the FHWA decision point, or to implement FHWA’s decision. However such decisions themselves are reserved to FHWA. The authority given to the State DOT under Section 106(c)(1) and (2) is limited to specific project approvals listed herein. Nothing listed herein is intended to include assumption of FHWA’s decision-making authority regarding Title 23, U.S.C. eligibility or Federal-aid participation determinations. The FHWA always must make the final eligibility and participation decisions for the Federal-aid Highway Program. Section 106(c)(3) requires FHWA and the State DOT to enter into an agreement relating to the extent to which the State DOT assumes project responsibilities. This Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (S&O Agreement), includes information on specific project approvals and related responsibilities, and provides the requirements for FHWA oversight of the FAHP (Oversight Program), as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(g).

  • Background Investigations OSC policy requires that background investigations be conducted on Contractor Staff who will have access to OSC’s IT systems, access to OSC confidential information/data, or routine access to any OSC facility. For purposes of this policy, “routine access” is defined as access to an OSC facility for five consecutive business days or 10 business days over the annual term of the engagement. Accordingly, with the signing of this Agreement, the Contractor certifies that it has or will conduct a background investigation on Staff to whom the policy applies within the 12 months prior to the Staff commencing Services under this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to undertake a background investigation of any new/replacement Staff during the term of the Agreement. At a minimum, background investigations shall include a review/evaluation of the following: • identity verification, including Social Security Number search; • employment eligibility, including verification of U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status where appropriate; • criminal history/court records (Federal, State and local for the past five years); • work experience/history for the past five years; • pertinent skills, qualifications, and education/professional credentials; and • references. The Contractor must obtain the consent of its Staff to allow OSC, upon request: (i) to review the background investigation records, including all supporting documentation, and (ii) to conduct its own background investigation. Only Staff who have passed the background investigation, and provided such consent shall be assigned to provide Services to OSC under this Agreement. During the term of the Agreement, and in accordance with Appendix A (Section 10, Records), the Contractor must maintain records related to the background investigations performed.

  • Background Intellectual Property ‌ Notwithstanding and superseding anything to the contrary in this ARTICLE 14, each Party retains title to all Intellectual Property Rights owned or possessed by it or any of its affiliates prior to or independent of performance of this Agreement and used by it in fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement, as well as any modifications or improvements made thereto in the course of performing this Agreement (“Background IP”). To the extent that one Party acquires any right, title, or interest in and to any aspect of the modifications or improvements to the Background IP of the other Party, such first Party shall assign such right, title, and interest to the second Party, immediately following such acquisition. If any of the Supplier’s Background IP is included in or required to use the Documentation provided by the Supplier to the City, the Supplier hereby grants to the City an irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid-up, royalty-free, worldwide, transferable and non-exclusive licence (including the right to sub-licence only to members of the City’s Group) to, itself and through contractors and agents, use, copy, amend, reproduce, modify, create derivative works of, use, commercialize, and otherwise exploit the Supplier’s Background IP but only to the extent required to use such Documentation for the purpose (or any reasonably inferred purpose) for which it has been provided or for the provision of the Supply under this Agreement (excluding any software source code).

  • Background Screening VENDOR shall comply with all requirements of Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes, and all of its personnel who (1) are to be permitted access to school grounds when students are present, (2) will have direct contact with students, or (3) have access or control of school funds, will successfully complete the background screening required by the referenced statutes and meet the standards established by the statutes. This background screening will be conducted by SBBC in advance of VENDOR or its personnel providing any services under the conditions described in the previous sentence. VENDOR shall bear the cost of acquiring the background screening required by Section 1012.32, Florida Statutes, and any fee imposed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to maintain the fingerprints provided with respect to VENDOR and its personnel. The parties agree that the failure of VENDOR to perform any of the duties described in this section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling SBBC to terminate immediately with no further responsibilities or duties to perform under this Agreement. VENDOR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SBBC, its officers and employees from any liability in the form of physical or mental injury, death or property damage resulting from VENDOR’s failure to comply with the requirements of this section or with Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes.

  • Background Check The Department or Customer may require the Contractor to conduct background checks of its employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors as directed by the Department or Customer. The cost of the background checks will be borne by the Contractor. The Department or Customer may require the Contractor to exclude the Contractor’s employees, agents, representatives, or subcontractors based on the background check results. In addition, the Contractor must ensure that all persons have a responsibility to self-report to the Contractor within three (3) calendar days any arrest for any disqualifying offense. The Contractor must notify the Contract Manager within twenty-four (24) hours of all details concerning any reported arrest. Upon the request of the Department or Customer, the Contractor will re-screen any of its employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors during the term of the Contract.

  • Background Data The Disclosing Party's Background Data, if any, will be identified in a separate technical document.

  • Background Checks The State may require that the Contractor and Contractor Parties undergo criminal background checks as provided for in the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Administration and Operations Manual or such other State document as governs procedures for background checks. The Contractor and Contractor Parties shall cooperate fully as necessary or reasonably requested with the State and its agents in connection with such background checks.

  • Background and Purpose Executive was employed by the Company. Executive's employment is ending effective ____________ under the conditions described in Section 3.1 of the Executive Severance Agreement ("Agreement") by and between Executive and the Company dated ____________, 2012. The purpose of this Release is to settle, and the parties hereby settle, fully and finally, any and all claims the Releasing Parties may have against the Released Parties, whether asserted or not, known or unknown, including, but not limited to, claims arising out of or related to Executive's employment, any claim for reemployment, or any other claims whether asserted or not, known or unknown, past or future, that relate to Executive's employment, reemployment, or application for reemployment.

  • BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION The BOARD is prohibited from knowingly employing a person who has been convicted of committing or attempting to commit certain criminal offenses. If the required criminal background investigation is not completed at the time this Contract is signed, and the subsequent investigation report reveals that there has been a prohibited conviction, this Contract shall immediately become null and void.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.