Communication Cost Clause Samples
The Communication Cost clause defines which party is responsible for paying expenses related to communication between the parties, such as phone calls, mail, courier services, or electronic communications. Typically, this clause specifies whether each party bears its own costs or if one party will reimburse the other for certain types of communication expenses incurred during the performance of the contract. Its core function is to prevent disputes by clearly allocating responsibility for these costs, ensuring transparency and predictability in the financial aspects of contractual communications.
Communication Cost. Customer shall provide TPS with access to all applicable CAISO systems available to Customer, as necessary for TPS to provide Customer with Services described in this Agreement or as may be required by the Governing Rules. Customer shall reimburse TPS for all additional reasonable costs or expenses incurred by TPS for equipment or facilities located at Customer’s site and/or directly related to providing communications to each Customer Resource or Load or to adjust for changes in (i) communication technology, (ii) CAISO or NERC communication criteria or standards, or (iii) communication technology implemented by Customer during the Term to the extent TPS’s provision of additional equipment or facilities have been authorized by Customer. Prior to incurring any such costs subject to reimbursement by Customer, TPS shall provide Customer with an estimate of and explanation of the need for, such costs and obtain Customer’s approval for such costs, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. For such communication costs, TPS will invoice Customer, providing Customer with supporting details from TPS’s invoices from communications providers or vendors. Included in communications costs reimbursable by Customer are any incremental applicable CAISO WAN costs attributable to Customer which are specified by supporting cost documentation from CAISO.
Communication Cost. The communication cost is shown in Table 4.4. The communication cost is analyzed by expressing both unicast and multicast messages for every member in the system. The communication cost in setup and private key extraction phase is O(n) for both schemes. For the proposed scheme, the communication costs are O(m) in both join and leave phases.
Communication Cost. The communication cost is shown in Table 3.1 that compared among STR, braid groups on GDH and this protocol TBG. The number of rounds on TBG is constant in all events same as STR what better than braid groups on GDH protocols on merge event. The number of rounds on merge operation in Braid groups on GDH depends on number of merging members, but all operations in TBG and STR do not depend on number of members that dynamic movement. The number of rounds in TBG is equals to STR and Braid groups on GDH in join, leave and partition protocol. In merge protocol, the number of rounds in TBG is less than Braid groups on GDH which depending on number of merging member.
Communication Cost. The communication of membership authentication is performed completely in the broadcast channel. Total communication time is to transmit m random integers, protocol, this cost is significantly reduced to avoid causing heavy communication cost since all transmitted data are computed on polynomial-based modulus. In addition, our protocols are non-interactive, all released values can be broadcasted simultaneously, it is very efficient.
Communication Cost. The communication cost is shown in Table 3.1. The communication costs are analyzed by comparing both unicast and multicast messages for every member in the system. For join and leave operations, the assumptions that there are n existing members in a group and m members need to join or leave the group are used. For Ma et al., they do not state how to publish the public group key and send private key to each member, so it supposes to used unicast message and is written down with remark. Another notation in this table is that the join and leave operations were not proposed in Ma et al. and ▇▇ et al. scheme. For ▇▇▇▇ et al. (2011) the process for generating a multi-signature is omitted because the comparison in the same condition with the others is needed.
Communication Cost. In order to examine the overhead communication of the four schemes during the key process for negotiating, we set the p-length to 512-bit and the q- length to 160-bit. Let |G1|, |G2| and |Zq| represent the size of an element in G1, G2 and Z | q, and |H| indicates the duration of the result of the general hash operation. Gq is equivalent to G1 in our system. That is to say, |Gq| = 1024(bits), |G1| = 1024(bits), |G2| = 1024(bits) (bits). |T| denotes the time stamp length. Also supposed to be |T| = 32 (bits). The session sponsoring (the user) side in ▇▇▇▇▇ et al's protocol must transmit the message (xAuthi, Cm, Ri, Bij, Mi, Authij), and the responding side (the server) must send the message (▇▇▇▇▇▇, Wj , Rj ). ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Cm, ▇▇, ▇▇▇, Mi, Wj, Rj, Rj, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Authji, all of Z, and all of them. The communication costs for ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. were thus 7|G1| + 2|H| = 7 | 1024 + 2 | 160 = 7488 (bits). The session sponsor (smart metre) side of the protocol of ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. has to transmit the message (T1, C1, A1, A3), and the answering party (server) has to send the message (g2, A2). A1, A2, A3 are the general hash operation outputs. T1, g2 os G2 and C1 os Z os os os os os os os os. Thus, ▇▇▇▇▇ et alcommunication .'s costs is 2|G2|+|Zq|+3|H| = 2 (bits). The session sponsor side (smart card) must send a message in Li et alprotocol .'s and the answering side (server) needs to send the message (Fui, kui, Bui, dtui, t) (Dsj , ksj ). It's the timeline. Dsj, Dui are the general hash operation outputs. Kui, Bui, ksj è on the ground G2 and Fui, dtui è on the ground Z è on the ground. Thus, the cost of communication between Li et al is |T| + 3|G1| + 2|Zq| + 2|H| | 32 + 3 (bits). The sponsor side (a server) must send a message to the system (pidi, μi, Ai, T1 I and the answering side (a server) must send the message (pidj, μj, Aj, T1 j). Pidi and pidj are general hash operation outputs. μi, ▇▇ os Z os os q and Ai, Aj os Gq. The timestamps are T 1 I and T 1 j. The cost of our scheme is therefore 2|H|+2|Zq|+2|Gq|+2|Gq|+2|T|=2 kin 160 + 2 kin 1024 + 2 kin 32=2752 (bits). The results of the comparison of communication costs are displayed in Fig. Table Computation Cost Compares (Ms) Fig.. Computational costs comparison: Responder side Fig.. Communication cost comparison
Communication Cost. We assume C is 256 bits and timestamp T is 64 bits. In the mutual authentication phase of our protocol, each GN needs to send message (SEi+1, Ci, t1i ) to GNi+1 and broadcast (Xi, Yi, Zi, t2i ). Therefore, each GN needs to send messages of length 5C + 2T and receive messages of length (3n 1)C + nT. The total communication cost in the the mutual authentication phase and the group key generation phase of our protocol is (3n2 + 4n)C + (n2 + 2n)T.