Table 9. Comparison with previous protocols.
| Ref.no. | Platform | Service provider evaluated parameters | History Capturing | Trust Evaluation Methodology | Discussion and limitations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLA | Processing Performance | Violations measurement | Other | |||||
| (Akhtar, 2014) | CC | √ | Infrastructure performance | Fuzzy logic-based rules | Measured limited parameters for each performance variable. | |||
| (Khan, Chan & Chua, 2018) | CC | √ | System training using Fuzzy logic-based rules | Didn’t evaluate other parameters, like processing success rate, data security or privacy measures taken by a service provider. | ||||
| (Monir, AbdelKader & EI-Horbaty, 2019) | MEC | √ | √ | -User feedback opinion | Only evaluated SLA by considering service users’ feedback opinion, which may affect trust results credibility. | |||
| (Deng et al., 2020) | MEC | √ | Identity management and hardware capabilities | -User feedback opinion | The hardware capabilities are claimed by the service provider, which doesn’t ensure their credibility. Processing performance evaluation depends only on users’ opinion, which may be biased. The model doesn’t encounter threats such as bad mouthing or collusion attacks. | |||
| Integrated Three-Tier Trust Management Framework | MEC | √ | √ | √ | √ | -User feedback opinion -Computation-based with the aid of fuzzy logic concept |
Service user trust value should be measured. Transaction cost should be considered to eliminate false transactions rating. |
|