Performance and Comparison Sample Clauses

Performance and Comparison. In this section, the proposed scheme is compared with existing schemes [8,16,22] in terms of computation overhead. Jiang, Zhu and Wang [22] proposed a conditional privacy (ACP) scheme based on anonymized batch authentication in vehicular ad hoc networks. Hai [8] proposed an authenticated group key Agreement (AGKA) scheme for mobile communication based on bilinear. For comparison, only the time-consuming multiplication/division and bilinear pairing operations are considered, and the other efficient operations such as point addition are omitted. Let Tpar be the execution time of a pairing operation, Tmul be the execution time of performing a scale multiplication over an elliptic curve, Terminal be the user terminal node, and ACS be the access control server. The comparison is summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, every procedure of our scheme enjoys constant computing costs, whereas the costs of existing schemes are linear with the group size. With the increase of the number of vehicles, the advantages of our scheme are more and more obvious, that is, the computation costs would not increase. Since both our scheme and ACP use the batch verification method, RSU takes less computations than the other two schemes. Note that OBU in [22] should take n multiplications, which requires more computation resources than our scheme. Although the computation cost of OBU in [8] is the same as that of our scheme, there requires a complicated certificate management mechanism, which affects the overall secret key negotiation efficiency. Table 2. Computation Overhead Comparison. Scheme OBU/Terminal RSU/ACS − ACP [22] nTmul 3Tpar + (2n + 1)Tmul AGKA [8] 3Tpar + Tmul (2n 1)Tpar + (n + 1)Tmul SADEGKA [16] 2nTpar + 5nTmul 2nTpar + 4nTmul Our scheme 3Tpar + Tmul 3Tpar + Tmul We conducted experiments on a system with Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5200U CPU at 2.20 GHz and
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Performance and Comparison

  • Metrics The DISTRICT and PARTNER will partake in monthly coordination meetings at mutually agreed upon times and dates to discuss the progress of the program Scope of Work. DISTRICT and PARTNER will also mutually establish criteria and process for ongoing program assessment/evaluation such as, but not limited to the DISTRICT’s assessment metrics and other state metrics [(Measures of Academic Progress – English, SBAC – 11th grade, Redesignation Rates, mutually developed rubric score/s, student attendance, and Social Emotional Learning (SEL) data)]. The DISTRICT and PARTNER will also engage in annual review of program content to ensure standards alignment that comply with DISTRICT approved coursework. The PARTNER will provide their impact data based upon these metrics.

  • Performance Management 17.1 The Contractor will appoint a suitable Account Manager to liaise with the Authority’s Strategic Contract Manager. Any/all changes to the terms and conditions of the Agreement will be agreed in writing between the Authority’s Strategic Contract Manager and the Contractor’s appointed representative.

  • Performance Measures and Metrics This section outlines the performance measures and metrics upon which service under this SLA will be assessed. Shared Service Centers and Customers will negotiate the performance metric, frequency, customer and provider service responsibilities associated with each performance measure. Measurements of the Port of Seattle activities are critical to improving services and are the basis for cost recovery for services provided. The Port of Seattle and The Northwest Seaport Alliance have identified activities critical to meeting The NWSA’s business requirements and have agreed upon how these activities will be assessed.

  • Performance Metrics In the event Grantee fails to timely achieve the following performance metrics (the “Performance Metrics”), then in accordance with Section 8.4 below Grantee shall upon written demand by Triumph repay to Triumph all portions of Grant theretofore funded to and received by Grantee:

  • Performance Monitoring A. Performance Monitoring of Subrecipient by County, State of California and/or HUD shall consist of requested and/or required written reporting, as well as onsite monitoring by County, State of California or HUD representatives.

  • PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS Upon a particular Commission’s issuance of an Order pertaining to Performance Measurements in a proceeding expressly applicable to all CLECs generally, BellSouth shall implement in that state such Performance Measurements as of the date specified by the Commission. Performance Measurements that have been Ordered in a particular state can currently be accessed via the internet at xxxx://xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx. The following Service Quality Measurements (SQM) plan as it presently exists and as it may be modified in the future, is being included as the performance measurements currently in place for the state of Tennessee. At such time that the TRA issues a subsequent Order pertaining to Performance Measurements, such Performance Measurements shall supersede the SQM contained in the Agreement. BellSouth Service Quality Measurement Plan‌ (SQM) Tennessee Performance Metrics Measurement Descriptions Version 2.00 Issue Date: July 1, 2003 Introduction

  • Performance Expectations The Charter School’s performance in relation to the indicators, measures, metrics and targets set forth in the CPF shall provide the basis upon which the SCSC will decide whether to renew the Charter School’s Charter Contract at the end of the charter term. This section shall not preclude the SCSC from considering other relevant factors in making renewal decisions.

  • Performance Measurement Satisfactory performance of this Contract will be measured by:

  • Goals Goals define availability, performance and other objectives of Service provisioning and delivery. Goals do not include remedies and failure to meet any Service Goal does not entitle Customer to a Service credit.

  • Performance Frameworks ‌ The School's academic, organizational, and financial performance under this Charter Contract shall be evaluated using the Academic, Organizational, and Financial Performance Frameworks, respectively, attached as Exhibit B to this Charter Contract. The specific terms, forms, and requirements of the Performance Frameworks, including any required indicators, measures, metrics, and targets, are maintained and disseminated by the Commission and shall be binding on the School. Material changes to the Performance Frameworks shall require approval by the Commission.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!