title: PoT-PolKA: Let the edge control the proof-of-transit in path-aware networks

authors: Borges, ES

abstract: This paper presents a scalable and efficient solution for secure network design that involves the selection and verification of network paths. The proposal addresses the challenges related to compliance policies by introducing a Proof-of-Transit (PoT) feasible implementation for path-aware programmable networks. Our approach relies on i) a source routing mechanism based on a fixed routeID representing a unique identifier per path, which serves as a key for PoT lookup tables; ii) the “in situ” that allows to collect telemetry information in the packet while the packet traverses a path. The former enables path selection with policy at the edge, while the later allows to perform path verification without extra probe-traffic. A P4 programmable language prototype demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach to protect against deviation attacks with low overhead. The results show its scalability considering the protocol overhead as the path length increases; a significant reduction in network’s forwarding state for fat-tree topologies depending on the workload per path (flows/path). Finally, experimental results show a RTT comparison evaluation, the impact of PoT computation, protection to path deviation and seamless path migration keeping flow protection.

text: PoT-PolKA: Let the edge control the proof-of-transit in path-aware networks This paper presents a scalable and efficient solution for secure network design that involves the selection and verification of network paths. The proposal addresses the challenges related to compliance policies by introducing a Proof-of-Transit (PoT) feasible implementation for path-aware programmable networks. Our approach relies on i) a source routing mechanism based on a fixed routeID representing a unique identifier per path, which serves as a key for PoT lookup tables; ii) the “in situ” that allows to collect telemetry information in the packet while the packet traverses a path. The former enables path selection with policy at the edge, while the later allows to perform path verification without extra probe-traffic. A P4 programmable language prototype demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach to protect against deviation attacks with low overhead. The results show its scalability considering the protocol overhead as the path length increases; a significant reduction in network’s forwarding state for fat-tree topologies depending on the workload per path (flows/path). Finally, experimental results show a RTT comparison evaluation, the impact of PoT computation, protection to path deviation and seamless path migration keeping flow protection.

year: 2024

title: Coaching in disability sport: from practice to theory

authors: Townsend, Robert C.

subjects: Sports & Recreation

abstract: Understanding the complexity of coaching in disability sport remains a pressing concern. While interest in disability sport continues to grow there is a relative lack of insight into coaching in this context, particularly research which illustrates a ‘grounded’ perspective on practice. As a result, coaching in disability sport is critically under-theorised, and we know comparatively little of the nature of coaching in different disability sport contexts (Townsend, Smith & Cushion, 2016). There have been longstanding calls to understand coaches’ learning and development in disability sport (DePauw, 1986), and as a result there is a small, but growing, body of literature which has begun to explore the unique considerations of coaching in disability sport. Such considerations include the informal and unstructured nature of coach learning (e.g. McMaster, Culver & Werthner,  2012; Duarte & Culver, 2014; Taylor, Werthner & Culver, 2014; Taylor, Werthner, Culver & Callary, 2015), the lack of disability-specific coach education (e.g. Cregan, Bloom & Reid, 2007; Douglas et al., 2016; Douglas & Hardin, 2014), and the complex and multifaceted role of coaches in disability contexts (e.g. Tawse, Bloom, Sabiston & Reid, 2012; DePauw & Gavron, 1991), all of which invite and encourage comparisons with the narrative presented below. More recent research however, has challenged the lack of critical insight in disability coaching research (e.g. Townsend et al., 2016), arguing that the research is characterised by a normative focus that downplays the inter-connections between disability and cultural contexts such as sport. The lack of consideration of disability is an important theoretical ‘gap’, as Smith and Bundon (2016) argue, having a grasp on how disability is explained and understood is vital for individuals working with disabled people in any context, especially in coaching where practice is fundamentally shaped by our working understanding of disability (cf. DePauw, 2000). It is the purpose of this chapter, then, to encourage practitioners and researchers to examine their understandings of disability in the first instance, as a basis for developing coaching practice. What follows are reflections from Derek Morgan, Head Coach of the England Learning Disability Cricket squad, but, first, some context about the team.

text: Coaching in disability sport: from practice to theory Understanding the complexity of coaching in disability sport remains a pressing concern. While interest in disability sport continues to grow there is a relative lack of insight into coaching in this context, particularly research which illustrates a ‘grounded’ perspective on practice. As a result, coaching in disability sport is critically under-theorised, and we know comparatively little of the nature of coaching in different disability sport contexts (Townsend, Smith & Cushion, 2016). There have been longstanding calls to understand coaches’ learning and development in disability sport (DePauw, 1986), and as a result there is a small, but growing, body of literature which has begun to explore the unique considerations of coaching in disability sport. Such considerations include the informal and unstructured nature of coach learning (e.g. McMaster, Culver & Werthner,  2012; Duarte & Culver, 2014; Taylor, Werthner & Culver, 2014; Taylor, Werthner, Culver & Callary, 2015), the lack of disability-specific coach education (e.g. Cregan, Bloom & Reid, 2007; Douglas et al., 2016; Douglas & Hardin, 2014), and the complex and multifaceted role of coaches in disability contexts (e.g. Tawse, Bloom, Sabiston & Reid, 2012; DePauw & Gavron, 1991), all of which invite and encourage comparisons with the narrative presented below. More recent research however, has challenged the lack of critical insight in disability coaching research (e.g. Townsend et al., 2016), arguing that the research is characterised by a normative focus that downplays the inter-connections between disability and cultural contexts such as sport. The lack of consideration of disability is an important theoretical ‘gap’, as Smith and Bundon (2016) argue, having a grasp on how disability is explained and understood is vital for individuals working with disabled people in any context, especially in coaching where practice is fundamentally shaped by our working understanding of disability (cf. DePauw, 2000). It is the purpose of this chapter, then, to encourage practitioners and researchers to examine their understandings of disability in the first instance, as a basis for developing coaching practice. What follows are reflections from Derek Morgan, Head Coach of the England Learning Disability Cricket squad, but, first, some context about the team.

year: 2019-12-17

title: Rauaroha: He tohu Aroha rau i te akoranga

authors: Paringatai, Karyn

subjects: huarahi ako

abstract: Nö te tau 2001 i whakatüria ai e Ako Aotearoa (National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence) tëtahi tohu hei whakanui i ngä mahi a te tangata e whakaako ana i te taumata takiura. Me whakaatu te kaiwhiwhi tohu i tana ü roa ki ngä taumata tiketike rawa i tana mahi whakaako. Tekau mä rua ngä kaiwhiwhi toa i ia tau, kätahi ka whiriwhirihia ai e tëtahi kömiti kaiwhakawä kia kotahi te tangata e whiwhi nei i te Tohu Tiketike o te Pirimia. Mö ngä tau e whä kua hipa ake nei i riro i ngä kaiako Mäori te tohu tiketike nei. Ko te aronga o tënei tuhinga he whakaatu i ngä ähuatanga o ënei kaiako kia märama pai atu ai te whakaaro tiketike o te Mäori ki tënei mea te ako.

text: Rauaroha: He tohu Aroha rau i te akoranga Nö te tau 2001 i whakatüria ai e Ako Aotearoa (National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence) tëtahi tohu hei whakanui i ngä mahi a te tangata e whakaako ana i te taumata takiura. Me whakaatu te kaiwhiwhi tohu i tana ü roa ki ngä taumata tiketike rawa i tana mahi whakaako. Tekau mä rua ngä kaiwhiwhi toa i ia tau, kätahi ka whiriwhirihia ai e tëtahi kömiti kaiwhakawä kia kotahi te tangata e whiwhi nei i te Tohu Tiketike o te Pirimia. Mö ngä tau e whä kua hipa ake nei i riro i ngä kaiako Mäori te tohu tiketike nei. Ko te aronga o tënei tuhinga he whakaatu i ngä ähuatanga o ënei kaiako kia märama pai atu ai te whakaaro tiketike o te Mäori ki tënei mea te ako.

year: 2017