Common use of Reliable Group Communication Semantics Clause in Contracts

Reliable Group Communication Semantics. Many modern collaborative and distributed applications require a reliable group communi- cation platform. Current reliable group communication toolkits generally provide one (or both) of two strong group communication semantics: Extended Virtual Synchrony (EVS) [22] and View Synchrony (VS) [15]. Both semantics guarantee that: 1) group members see the same set of messages between two sequential group membership events, and, 2) the sender’s requested message order (e.g., FIFO, Causal, or Total) is preserved. VS offers a stricter guarantee than EVS: Messages are delivered to all recipients in the same membership as viewed by the sender application when it originally sent the message. In the context of this paper we require the underlying group communication to provide VS. However, we stress that VS is needed for the sake of fault-tolerance and robustness; the security of our protocols is in no way affected by the lack of VS. More details on the interaction of key agreement protocols and reliable group communication are addressed in [1].

Reliable Group Communication Semantics. Many modern collaborative and distributed applications require a reliable group communi- cation communication platform. Current reliable group communication toolkits generally provide one (or both) of two strong group communication semantics: Extended Virtual Synchrony (EVS) [2221] and View Synchrony Syn- chrony (VS) [15]. Both semantics guarantee that: 1) group members see the same set of messages between two sequential group membership events, and, 2) the sender’s requested message order (e.g., FIFO, Causal, or Total) is preserved. VS offers a stricter guarantee than EVS: Messages are delivered to all recipients in the same membership as viewed by the sender application when it originally sent the message. In the context of this paper we require the underlying group communication commu- nication to provide VS. However, we stress that VS is needed for the sake of fault-tolerance and robustness; the security of our protocols is in no way affected by the lack of VS. More details on the interaction of key agreement protocols and reliable group communication are addressed in [1].

Reliable Group Communication Semantics. Many modern collaborative and distributed applications require a reliable group communi- cation communication platform. Current reliable group communication toolkits generally provide one (or both) of two strong group communication semantics: Extended Virtual Synchrony (EVS) [22MAMSA94] and View Synchrony (VS) [15FLS97]. Both semantics guarantee that: 1) group members see the same set of messages between two sequential group membership events, and, 2) the sender’s requested message order (e.g., FIFO, Causal, or Total) is preserved. VS offers a stricter guarantee than EVS: Messages are delivered to all recipients in the same membership as viewed by the sender application when it originally sent the message. In the context of this paper we require the underlying group communication to provide VS. However, we stress that VS is needed for the sake of fault-tolerance and robustness; the security of our protocols is in no way affected by the lack of VS. More details on the interaction of key agreement protocols and reliable group communication are addressed in [1].AAH+00].‌

Reliable Group Communication Semantics. Many modern collaborative and distributed applications require a reliable re- liable group communi- cation communication platform. Current reliable group communication communi- cation toolkits generally provide one (or both) of two strong group communication com- munication semantics: Extended Virtual Synchrony (EVS) [22MAMSA94] and View Synchrony (VS) [15FLS97]. Both semantics guarantee that: 1) group members see the same set of messages between two sequential group membership events, and, 2) the sender’s requested message order (e.g., FIFO, Causal, or Total) is preserved. VS offers a stricter guarantee than EVS: Messages are delivered to all recipients in the same membership member- ship as viewed by the sender application when it originally sent the message. In the context of this paper we require the underlying group communication to provide VS. However, we stress that VS is needed for the sake of fault-tolerance and robustness; the security of our protocols is in no way affected by the lack of VS. More details on the interaction interac- tion of key agreement protocols and reliable group communication are addressed in [1AAH+00].