### Table 1: Symbols used in the analysis of the leveledcommitment protocol

1995

"... In PAGE 6: ... Section 2 describes settings where only one agent apos;s future involves uncertainty, while Section 3 describes settings where both agents apos; futures involve uncertainty. The sym- bols used in the upcoming sections are summarized in Table1 . In Section 4 some practical prescriptions are given to builders of automated negotiation systems.... ..."

### Table 4. The RCC-8 relations represented as interior algebra constraints

1998

"... In PAGE 7: ... Hence each RCC-8 relation can be speci ed by a conjunction of interior algebraic equalities and disequalities. These are given in Table4 . Note that the theory of interior algebras and the constraints corresponding to the RCC-8 relations can be represented simply as a set of equational literals (those stemming from the theory contain variables which are implicitly universally quanti ed, whereas those associated with the RCC-8 relations are ground literals).... In PAGE 9: ... P and DC correspond directly to I formulae as given in Table 6. PO must rst be analysed as :DR ^ :P ^ :Pi as shown in Table4 . The (positive) model constraints correspond to the formula set fa ) b; b _ cg and the (negative) entailment constraints (including the non-null constraints) to fa ) c; c ) a; (a ^ c); a; b; cg.... In PAGE 11: ...11 Nebel apos;s analysis also provides the basis for a proof that the RCC-8 relation set (interpreted in accordance with Table4 ) is 3-compact w.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 9 Protocol theory complexity matrix Bounded # Roles Unbounded # Roles

1982

"... In PAGE 36: ...DEXPC forDEXP-complete, and Undec . for Undecidable. The entries also indi- cate which theorem is applicable in each case. Table9 is a more detailed summary of the complexity results, where we show more detail about the results for the upper and lower bounds. The columns are the same as in Table 8, but now the two main rows consider whether the intruder is allowed to generate fresh values or not.... In PAGE 36: ... If disequality is not allowed, then this test is not performed. Table9 shows the complexity results for these cases, using the same notation as for Table 8. The numeric references indicate the propositions about specific lower or upper bounds which we discuss in the following sections.... In PAGE 46: ....5.2. Ssize=k is Undecidable (Theorem 1) For the case of unbounded roles and unbounded existentials (the rightmost col- umn in Table9 ), we turn to results from Database theory, where the complexity results for Embedded Implicational Dependencies (EIDs) [17] and Datalog [22] can be applied. Embedded Implication Dependencies are exactly Horn clauses with ex- istentials and equality, as defined in Section 5.... In PAGE 55: ...301 We have identified an open problem for the complexity of the secrecy case with disequality, unbounded roles, and bounded nonces (the ??? box in Table9 ). We con- jecture that the additional power of the disequality test makes this case undecidable.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 8 Protocol theory complexity overview Bounded # Roles Unbounded # Roles

1982

"... In PAGE 35: ...3. Protocol complexity matrix Table8 shows a summary of the complexity results for the main theorems pre- sented in this paper. The two main columns consider the case of whether the number of roles is bounded or unbounded.... In PAGE 36: ... Because the number is fixed, the nonces can be assumed to have been produced during initialization, and not within the roles themselves. The two rows of Table8 consider whether the term size k is fixed in all instances of the problem, or whether the term size is allowed to vary as a parameter of the problem. For each entry of the matrix in Table 8, we show the complexity result for that case, using P to indicate the problem is in polynomial time, NPC forNP-complete, DEXPC forDEXP-complete, and Undec .... In PAGE 36: ... The two rows of Table 8 consider whether the term size k is fixed in all instances of the problem, or whether the term size is allowed to vary as a parameter of the problem. For each entry of the matrix in Table8 , we show the complexity result for that case, using P to indicate the problem is in polynomial time, NPC forNP-complete, DEXPC forDEXP-complete, and Undec . for Undecidable.... In PAGE 36: ... Table 9 is a more detailed summary of the complexity results, where we show more detail about the results for the upper and lower bounds. The columns are the same as in Table8 , but now the two main rows consider whether the intruder is allowed to generate fresh values or not. These rows are further subdivided into the cases where the roles can perform disequality tests which would allow them to determine whether two fresh values are different from each other.... In PAGE 36: ... If disequality is not allowed, then this test is not performed. Table 9 shows the complexity results for these cases, using the same notation as for Table8 . The numeric references indicate the propositions about specific lower or upper bounds which we discuss in the following sections.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 3: Analysis parameters and their symbols.

1998

"... In PAGE 7: ... We do not consider other protocols, since they do not try to achieve QoS and resource optimized trees. Table3 lists the parameters and their sym- bols. Most of these parameters depend on the topology and the membership behavior of the applications.... ..."

Cited by 64

### Table 3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols.

"... In PAGE 5: ... The data delivery protocol stack consists of the data link layer protocol, 100VG-Any LAN, as well as RDTP. Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. Note that BACE is located in one dedicated node in the current design.... In PAGE 6: ... Each sending stream must capture and destroy N tokens to send a N-bytes data frame. The number of byte-counting tokens in each time slot, that is, the token generation rate, is calculated as follows: tokeni = RTF bi (2) RTF = TS Nactive (3) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. The example in Table 1 illustrates the token allocation algorithm.... In PAGE 8: ... In the connection setup phase of a new connection, the admission control test on Jmax will be performed for each connection, including the existing ones and the new one, to make sure the delay jitter requirement of each connection will not be violated with the establishment of a new connection. Admission control on Jmax is performed using the following criterion: t + (Nnew active ? Ni active) TS Ji max (4) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols.... In PAGE 10: ...10 even smaller with the setup and teardown of connections, to reduce the skew between the two streams caused by network access. The admission control test on the QoS parameter SKmax (synchronization skew) is performed using the following criterion: Dist TS + t SKmax (5) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. Similar to the jitter control, the enforcement problem of the skew control still exists.... In PAGE 18: ...e., the initial skew 6, 7 skew(i) The skew between the ith frame of the two streams 7 Table3... ..."

### Table 3: The List of all Equation Symbols

"... In PAGE 5: ... The data delivery protocol stack consists of the data link layer protocol, 100VG-Any LAN, as well as RDTP. Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. Note that BACE is located in one dedicated node in the current design.... In PAGE 6: ... Each sending stream must capture and destroy N tokens to send a N-bytes data frame. The number of byte-counting tokens in each time slot, that is, the token generation rate, is calculated as follows: tokeni = RTF bi (2) RTF = TS Nactive (3) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. The example in Table 1 illustrates the token allocation algorithm.... In PAGE 8: ... In the connection setup phase of a new connection, the admission control test on Jmax will be performed for each connection, including the existing ones and the new one, to make sure the delay jitter requirement of each connection will not be violated with the establishment of a new connection. Admission control on Jmax is performed using the following criterion: t + (Nnew active ? Ni active) TS Ji max (4) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols.... In PAGE 10: ...10 even smaller with the setup and teardown of connections, to reduce the skew between the two streams caused by network access. The admission control test on the QoS parameter SKmax (synchronization skew) is performed using the following criterion: Dist TS + t SKmax (5) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. Similar to the jitter control, the enforcement problem of the skew control still exists.... In PAGE 14: ...263 compressed video les, climb.263 (the le used in the jitter control measurement experiments), at the same frame rate, 30 frame per second, from the server node vienna to the client node moscow and measured the skews between the two streams as follows: diff = T0(0) ? T1(0) (6) skew(i) = T1(i) ? T0(i) + diff (7) Table3 in Appendix shows the list of the equation symbols. Time Stream 0 Stream 1 0 0 21 688 688 667 667 21 diff Figure 9: Skew measurement between two streams.... ..."

### Table 1 : Symbols used in cost equations

2002

"... In PAGE 10: ... It uses greedy heuristics to find a reallocation that benefits the target transaction class in each iteration. A summary of the notation used below to describe the algorithm is given in Table1 . A more detailed discussion and analysis of DRF is provided elsewhere [13].... ..."

Cited by 6

### Table 1. Reachability Analysis of the Sliding Window Protocol

1998

"... In PAGE 12: ... We only need to check whether one of the three rst conditions in the proof of Lemma 7 holds. 8 Example In this section we apply our algorithm ( Table1 ) to a sliding window protocol (shown in Figure 1). We use a symbolic representation of the form hsi; qj; r1; r2i, where si and qj are the control states of the sender and the receiver, respec- tively, and r1 and r2 are SREs which describe the contents of the message and acknowledgement channels.... ..."

Cited by 60

### Table 1. Reachability Analysis of the Sliding Window Protocol

1998

"... In PAGE 10: ... We only need to check whether one of the three rst conditions in the proof of Lemma 7 holds. 8 Example In this section we apply our algorithm ( Table1 ) to a sliding window protocol (shown in Figure 1). We use a symbolic representation of the form hsi; qj; r1; r2i, where si and qj are the control states of the sender and the receiver, respectively, and r1 and r2 are SREs which describe the contents of the message and acknowledgement channels.... ..."

Cited by 60