I was reading the paper by Boneh et al. Link. The scheme describes what is called a Verifier Local Revocation Technique. The Scheme assumes that a Revocation List [RL] allows each verifier to check the validity of the signature. The revocation check works as follows:
- $e(T_2/A,\hat{u}) =^{?}e(T_1,\hat{v})$, Given $T_1 = A_iv^\alpha,T_2 = u^\alpha$
- $e(A_iv^\alpha/A,\hat{u}) =^{?}e(u^\alpha,\hat{v})$
In the case that $A_i\in$[RL], $A = A_i$, then,
- $e(v^\alpha,\hat{u}) =^{?}e(u^\alpha,\hat{v})$
The author then claims that these pairings are equal, The $(\hat{u},\hat{v})$ are generated as follows:
- $(\hat{u},\hat{v}) \leftarrow H_0 = (gpk,M,r) \in G_2^2$ , Given that:
- $u\leftarrow\psi(\hat{u})$, $v\leftarrow\psi(\hat{v})$,
I have three questions:
- Why the $(\hat{u},\hat{v}) \in G_2^2$ not $G_2$.
- What is the Hash Function that generates two parameters and is there a relation between them?
- How the check $e(v^\alpha,\hat{u}) =^{?}e(u^\alpha,\hat{v})$ is valid.