Negotiation protocol. 1. In issues concerning the performance of work and its technical arrangements, the employee must take the matter up directly with line management.
Negotiation protocol. The College agrees not to negotiate terms covered by this Agreement unless otherwise specified in this Agreement with any Association Member individually, or with any full- time faculty organization other than the Education Association for the duration of this Agreement.
Negotiation protocol. Any disputes related to this agreement should be resolved by following the negotiation protocol of the collective agreement.
Negotiation protocol. This research proposes a modified two-stage negotiation protocol based on the two-stage negotiation protocol proposed in [8]: MA Start MSAs Forecast the Evaluate the order demand of CA Can complete by itself? No Yes Cooperative game based coalition formation No Exist such coalitions No Any MSA can fulfill? Yes Adjust the Stackelberg game strategy based negotiation Yes Does MA not No agree? No Reach an aggreement? Yes Yes Final coalition determination Adjust the strategy Yes Agree to modify? End No First stage of the negotiation Second stage of the negotiation Ask MSA modify the strategy Reject the order Broadcast the order Modify the order Determine the quantity of the order Fig. 1. Flowchart of modified two-stage negotiation protocol Stage1: Negotiation among MSAs – Step 1: MA forecasts the demand of CA, determines the initial price, quantity and lead time of the order which he wants to place, and then broadcasts the order to all the MSAs.
Negotiation protocol. Any disputes related to this agreement should be resolved by following the negotiation pro- tocol of the collective labour agreement.
Negotiation protocol. Based on the framework presented in Figure 2, the negotiation is carried out autonomously by the agents of service providers and service consumer, following a particular negotiation protocol. Different protocols and decision making strategies have different goals, such as guaranteed success, maximising social welfare, maximising individual welfare and Pareto efficiency [23]. Our work aims at improving the efficiency of the SLA negotiation by providing the service providers with the ability to gain global knowledge of the negotiation by exchanging information and then further adjust their offers during negotiation. In a service composition scenario, a composite service consists of several component services provided by a group of service providers. The service consumer needs to negotiate with each service provider and contract SLA on each of these component services. The SLAs must fulfil the local requirements of every component service. The aggregation of all the SLAs also must fulfil the global requirements of the composite service. Usually, as long as the global requirements of the composite service are met, the service consumer concerns little about how they are met. Take the procurement for example, the customer hardly concerns about the time each individual phase takes. The initial mapping from the global requirements of the composite service to the local requirements of the component services is done by the service consumer before the SLA negotiation. The aim of the negotiation is to gradually diminish and finally eliminate the discrepancy between the service consumer’s and the service provider’s requirements by offering and counter-offering. Our negotiation protocol provides the service providers with the ability to obtain the global knowledge of the global negotiation and adjust their offers in order to improve the efficiency of the negotiation. The negotiation protocol involves two types of interactions:
Negotiation protocol. The agreement negotiation protocol, cf. Figure 9 starts after the policy evaluation of a service request within a Sentry instance concludes. If the policy effect compiled contains obligations, the PEP queries the OM for an agreement over the pending obligations, step 1 in Figure 9. Then, if there is not a previous agreement, the OM returns the agreement to be negotiated, step 2. The Sentry launches the negotiation, steps 3 to 14, which is repeated at most for three rounds. This protocol enables per-service and per-user resource agreements negotiations that are guaranteed to terminate after at most three negotiation rounds. This is inspired by the work of Xxxxxx et al. [19] in the “Or Best Offer” protocol. The Obligation Manager makes a first proposal in the Negotiating Optimum stage. The enterprise side cannot make any counter-proposal at this stage, since the user should not be involved during the negotiation, for the sake of simplicity and user friendliness. Therefore, the service provider is limited to check the list of obligations attached and to reject or bind them. If the agreement is denied by the enterprise, which means that one or more obligations are rejected, the OM issues the second proposal: Negotiating Acceptable stage. It includes a new set of obligations where the rejected obligations of the first set are replaced by their acceptable equivalents. The enterprise service may accept the second proposal, or start the third and last round: Negotiating Minimum stage, in which a new set of obligations classified as minimum replaces those rejected. The goals of this negotiation strategy are: i) to allow more than “take or leave” situations,
Negotiation protocol the client). In order to offer this information to the client, an OWL-S service description extended with the non-functional parameter is used. This description in- cludes the service execution time. The value of this pa- rameter is represented by an average execution time. For new services, this execution time is obtained by measuring off-line the cost of the service. After that, the SLA Manager makes online estimations of the ac- tual execution time of the services provided and the ex- pected execution time of each one is computed as the average time of these estimations. The interactions of the negotiation protocol between the client and SLA Manager are shown in Figure Figure 3: – The SLA Manager publishes the templates of the services provided by the +Cloud platform. – A client queries the agreement templates. – Based on a suitable template, the client analyses the service execution time t and, considering the value of this term, creates a new proposal pro- viding the desired deadline (tdeadline) in abso- lute time (date and hour) before which the service should finish its execution. The offer is sent to the SLA Manager. The query includes a template for- matted as an OWL document, which contains a set of service inputs, outputs and the deadline: query = ⟨ {input}, {output}, deadline ⟩ The client waits for an answer until a timeout (twait1) is reached. If the client does not receive an answer, it cancels the negotiation. – The SLA Manager analyzes the client’s template. This process is temporal bounded. Basically, the SLA Manager checks with the Service Supervi- sors if the service requested by the client is avail- able and if it can be provided before the client deadline. Each service consists on a set of ele- ments: service = ⟨ serviceId, {input}, {output}, ser- viceDuration, probability ⟩ If the service can be provided on time, the SLA Manager returns the same deadline. Otherwise, it proposes a new deadline (tdeadlineNew). In both cases, the SLA Manager also returns the probabil- ity of service execution success before the dead- line. The success probability of a service is cal- culated using the success probability of each ac- tion that must be carried out in the service execu- tion. The SLA Manager selects the service, taking into account the success probability of the service and its execution time. In order to guarantee that required service is going to be provided on that deadline, the SLA Manager schedules its service execution. Then, it waits...
Negotiation protocol. 5.1 Following provision by the Access Provider of a notice under paragraph 4.4 or 4.5, the Access Provider must:
Negotiation protocol. In our current work, we adopt the well-known alternating proposals protocol [148, 149, 154] in which the pair of negotiators exchange proposals in turns. We do not consider a temporal or computational cost of decision making for a client or the GRA in our modelling. One proposals’ generation for both parties and exchange of those proposals constitutes one negotiation round. Each negotiator may accept the opponent’s proposal, generate the counter-proposal or reject the opponent’s proposal without generating a counter-proposal. That is, the last option means that the negotiator quits negotiation. Figure 3.2 depicts the flow chart of the alternating proposals protocol implemented in our work. First, the client sends the message SUBMIT which contains its job to the Grid (see Definition 3.1). Then the GRA replies with the message PROPOSAL which contains the description of the proposed resources to execute tasks, specified in the job (i.e. a proposal which is defined in Definition 3.2). Then the client has three options to answer, i.e. • Send the PROPOSAL message which contains its own proposal, if the client is not satisfied with the GRA’s proposal and it is not willing to quit negotiation. • Send the ACCEPT message which contains a token “accept”, if the client is satisfied with the GRA’s proposal and it is willing to accept it. • Send the REJECT message which contains a token “reject”, if the client is not satisfied with the GRA’s proposal and it is willing to quit negotiation. In the same way, the GRA has the same three options to reply on the client’s proposal. The negotiation terminates with: • Success if the client or the GRA sends the ACCEPT message to its opponent. This message means that the negotiating parties reached a mutually acceptable agreement. • Failure if the client or the GRA sends the REJECT message to its opponent. This message means that the negotiating parties did not reach a mutually ac- ceptable agreement. Client GRA XOR SUBMIT PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ACCEPT / REJECT Negotiation terminates PROPOSAL XOR ... ACCEPT / REJECT Negotiation terminates Figure 3.2: Alternating proposals protocol We assume that negotiation can be terminated with a failure if: • the negotiation deadline of at least one negotiator is reached and this negotiator does not agree with the last proposal of its opponent; • the computational resources are exhausted and the GRA cannot make an offer to the client.
