Advertisement

From state machines to temporal logic: Specification methods for protocol standards

  • Richard L. Schwartz
  • P. Michael Melliar-Smith
2. Tutorial Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 207)

Abstract

This paper attempts to lend perspective to several different methods that have been employed for specifying computer communication protocols by comparing a spectrum of specification techniques. The paper characterizes specification languages such as state transition diagrams, variants of temporal logic approaches, and sequence expressions by the extent to which information is encoded as properties of a single state versus properties of a history of the entire computation state sequence. Taking the prototypical alternating bit protocol as an example, each method is used to specify the requirements for the send process of the distributed system.

Keywords

State Machine Temporal Logic State Component Liveness Property State Transition Diagram 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    ISO TC97/SC 16/WG1 Subgroup A on Architecture, “Concepts for describing the OSI architecture.” working draft, Ispra, Nov. 1981.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Lehmann, A. Pnueli, and J. Stavi, “Impartiality, justice and fairness: The ethics of concurrent termination,” in Proc. ICALP 81. New York: Springer Verlag, July 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, “Verification of concurrent programs, Part I: The temporal framework,” Dep. Comput. Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, Tech. Rep. STAN-CS-81-836, June 1981.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Hailpem, “Verifying concurrent processes using temporal logic,” Comput. Syst. Lab., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, Tech. Rep. 195, Aug. 1980.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    ISO TC97/SC16/WG1 Subgroup B on State Machines, “A FDT based on an extended state transition model,” working draft, Boston, MA, Dec. 1981.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    O. Herzog, “Static analysis of concurrent processes for dynamic properties using Petri nets,” in Semantics of Concurrent Computation. Evian, France: Springer Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Lamport, “Specifying concurrent program modules,” Comput. Sci. Lab., SRI Int., June 1981; also TOPLAS, to be published.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Vogt, “Event-based temporal logic specification of distributed systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Hahn-Meitner Inst., Berlin, Germany, Feb. 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Wolper, “Specification and synthesis of communicating processes using an extended temporal logic,” in Proc. POPL 82, ACM, Albuquerque, NM, Jan. 1982.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Schindler, “Basic concepts of formal specification techniques and of RSPL,” Tech. Univ. Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Tech. Rep., May 1980.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    ISO/TC97/SC16/WG1 Subgroup on Temporal Ordering Expressions, “Interaction primitives in formal specification of distributed systems,” working paper, Washington, DC, Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. E. Lauer, P. Torrigiani, and M. Shields, “COSY: A system specification language based on paths and processes,” Acta Inform., vol. 12, pp. 109–158, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. L. Schwartz and P. M. Melliar-Smith, “Temporal logic specification of distributed systems,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Distributed Syst., Apr. 1981 (revised version available from the authors).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Lamport, “Sometime is sometimes not never,” in Proc. POPL 1980, ACM, Las Vegas, NV, Jan. 1980.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. Berthomieu, “Algebraic specification of communication protocols,” Inform. Sci. Inst., Univ. Southern California. Los Angeles. Tech. Rep. RR-81-98, Dec. 1981.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Gerhart et al., “An overview of AFFIRM: A specification and verification system,” in Proc. IFIP Congress 80, Oct. 1980.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. E. Shostak, R. L. Schwartz, and P. M. Melliar-Smith, “STP: A mechanized logic for specification and verification,” in Proc. 6th Conf. Automated Deduction (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 138). New York: Springer Verlag, June 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Schwartz
  • P. Michael Melliar-Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations