Named-Function Network Reputation Control Using Blockchain Denylists

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In decentralized networks, there is a need to ensure that data and functions stored in Named-Function Networking (NFN) are up-to-date, legitimate, and accurately represented, as multiple providers may store stale or outdated artifacts, and there are variations in resource requirements and location restrictions.

Innovation Solution

Implement a distributed denylist and permitlist mechanism using blockchain technology to track reputable functions and ensure secure access control in NFN routers, preventing access to non-reputable providers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a decentralized reputation management system is implemented in a named-function network, then security and reliability are improved, but device complexity and orchestration difficulty increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefunction trustworthinessVSAvoidorchestration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments reputation management into distributed components: individual routers maintain local denylists, blockchain nodes verify function reputations independently, and no single entity controls the entire system. This segmentation improves reliability through decentralization while managing complexity through standardized interfaces.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The blockchain serves as an intermediary layer that mediates between function providers and consumers. It provides a trusted, immutable record of function reputations without requiring direct trust relationships between network participants, thereby improving reliability while simplifying orchestration through a standardized mediation layer.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Adaptability or versatility

If multiple function providers are allowed in the network, then adaptability and service variety are improved, but difficulty in detecting and measuring function legitimacy increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefunction varietyVSAvoidfunction legitimacy verification

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where function execution results and reputations are recorded on the blockchain. This creates a feedback loop that continuously updates function legitimacy information, enabling network participants to detect and measure function legitimacy based on historical performance data and reputation scores.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The denylist mechanism performs preliminary action by pre-identifying and blocking malicious or untrusted functions before they can execute. This proactive approach simplifies legitimacy verification by filtering out known bad actors, allowing the system to accommodate multiple function providers while maintaining security through pre-established trust criteria.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If a denylist is maintained on each router, then security is improved, but loss of information and synchronization difficulty increase

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovesecurityVSAvoiddenylist synchronization

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

Each router maintains a local copy of the denylist in its blockchain database. This copying approach improves security by enabling distributed verification, while the blockchain's consensus mechanism ensures all copies remain synchronized through cryptographic verification and immutable ledgers, preventing information loss or divergence.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

4Reliability

If blockchain is used for enhanced security, then reliability is improved, but use of energy and computational resources increase

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovesecurityVSAvoidcomputational energy consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies blockchain technology partially rather than universally. Critical security functions such as denylist maintenance and function reputation verification use blockchain's cryptographic verification, while less critical operations can use traditional verification methods. This selective application maintains security where needed while reducing overall energy consumption.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12615318B2Decentralized reputation management in a named-function network

Publication Date: 2026.04.28 INTEL CORP

AI summary

Various systems and methods for providing decentralized reputation management in a named-function network are described herein. A compute node is configured to access an information centric network (ICN) interest packet from a user device, the ICN interest packet including a function name and a data name; construct a named-function network (NFN) interest packet using the function name; transmit the NFN interest packet to a function provider; receive an NFN data packet with a version of a function corresponding to the function name; construct a named-data network (NDN) interest packet using the data name; receive an NDN data packet with a data value corresponding to the data name; determine that the version of the function is not on a denylist; and initiate execution of the version of the function with the data value in response to determining that the version of the function is not on the denylist.