Distributed Computing

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 129–135 | Cite as

Decidability of the termination problem for completely specified protocols

  • Alain Finkel
Article

Summary

In this paper, we present a new class of protocols called completely specified protocols. Each protocol is represented as a system of Communicating Finite State Machines. The class of completely specified protocols is such that each message that can be received by a Finite State Machine, can also be received in every local state of the Finite State Machine. These protocols are important because they allow for modelling unbounded fifo channels and make it possible to decide the Termination Problem, that is whether the reachability tree is finite or not. An example of our techniques is given using a practical problem concerning link protocols.

Key words

Communicating Finite State Machines Termination detection Completely specified protocols Higman's Lemma 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal S, Gopinath B: Special issue on tools for computer communication systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(3) (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bochmann G: Finite state description of communication protocols. Comput Network (2): 361–372 (1978)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bochmann G, Finkel A: Impact of queued interaction on protocol specification and verification. 2nd Int Symp on Interoperable Information Systems (ISIIS '88) Tokyo, Japan (1988).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brand D, Zafiropulo P: On communicating finite-state machines. Research Report, RZ 1053, IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, pp 1–83 (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brand D, Zafiropulo P: On communicating finite-state machines. J ACM 30(2): 323–342 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brauer W, Reisig W, Rozenberg G: Petri nets: Central models and their properties. Advances in Petri Nets 1986, Part 1, Bad Honnef, Lect Notes Comput Sci vol 254. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1986Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choquet A, Finkel A: Simulation of linear fifo nets by Petri nets having a structured set of terminal markings. 8th European Workshop on Applications and theory of Petri nets, Zaragoza, Spain (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chow C, Gouda M, Lam S: A discipline for constructing multiphase communication protocols. ACM Trans Comput Syst 3(4): 315–343 (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Favreau J M: Personal communication (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkel A: Structuration des systèmes de transitions: applications au contrôle du parallélisme par files fifo. Thèse d'Etat, University Paris 11 (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finkel A: A generalization of the procedure of Karp and Miller to well structured transition system. 14th ICALP Karlsruhe, RFA. Ottmann (ed:) LNCS 267: 499–508 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finkel A: A new class of analyzable CFSM with unbounded fifo channels. 8th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, IFIP WG6.188 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finkel A, Rosier L: A survey on decidability results for classes of fifo nets. Advances in Petri Nets 1988. LNCS 340: 106–132 (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gouda M: To verify progress for Communicating Finite State Machines. IEEE Trans 10(6): 846–855 (1984)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gouda M, Yu Y: Synthesis of Communicating Finite State Machines with guaranteed progress. IEEE Transactions on Communications 32(7) (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gouda M, Gurari E, Lai T, Rosier L: On deadlock detection in systems of communicating finite state machines. Comput Artif Intell 6(3): 209–228 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higman G: Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras. Proc Lond Math Soc 2 (1952)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karp R, Miller R: Parallel program schemata. JCSS 4, 147–195 (1969)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koenig D: Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig 1936Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lam S, Shankar U: Protocol verification via projections. IEEE Transact Softw Eng 10(4) (1984)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin F, Chu P, Liu M: Protocol verification using reachability analysis: the state space explosion problem and relief strategies. ACM SIGCOMM '87, Frontiers in Computer Communications Technology” Stowe, Vermont vol 17, no 5 (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller R: The construction of self-synchronizing finite state protocols. Distrib Comput 2: 104–112 (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pachl J: Reachability problems for CFSMs. Research Report CS-82-12, University of Waterloo, Dept of Comput Sci (1982)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pachl J: Protocol description and analysis based on a state transition model with channel expressions. Rudin H, West CH (eds) 7th Int Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification Montréal, Québec. IFIP 87, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland), pp 207–219Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramamoorthy C, Yaw Y, Aggarwal R, Song J: Synthesis of two party error recoverable protocols. ACM-SIGCOMM '86 Symposium, Communications Architectures & Protocols, Stowe, Vermont (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosier L, Yen H: Boundedness, empty channel detection, and synchronization for communicating finite automata. Theor Comput Sci 44: 69–105 (1986)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rubin J, West CH: An improved protocol validation technique. Comput Networks 6: 65–73 (1982)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sunshine C: Formal modelling of communication protocols. In: Schoemaker (ed) Computer networks and simulation 2. North Holland, 1982Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vuong ST, Cowan DD: Reachability analysis of protocols with fifo channels. ACM-SIGCOMM '83 Symposium Communications Architectures and Protocols. University of Texas at Austin, March 8–9. In: Computer Communication Review, vol 13, no 2 (1983)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Author deletedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zafiropulo P, Zafiropulo AL: Towards analyzing and synthesizing protocols. IEEE Trans Commun 28(4): 651–661 (1980)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhao Z, Bochmann G: Reduced reachability analysis of communication protocols: a new approach. 6th Int Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification Montréal, Québec. IFIP 7, North Holland (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Finkel
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Normale Supérieure de CachanL.I.F.A.C.Cachan CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations