| An approach to verification and validation of a reliable multicasting protocol |
| Full text |
Pdf
(818 KB)
|
| Source
|
International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis
archive
Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis
table of contents
San Diego, California, United States
Pages: 187 - 194
Year of Publication: 1996
ISBN:0-89791-787-1
Also published in ...
|
|
Authors
|
|
John R. Callahan
|
NASA Independent Software Verification and Validation Facility, Fairmont, West Virginia
|
|
Todd L. Montgomery
|
NASA Independent Software Verification and Validation Facility, Fairmont, West Virginia
|
|
| Sponsor |
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1, Downloads (12 Months): 11, Citation Count: 1
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the process of implementing a complex communications protocol that provides reliable delivery of data in multicast-capable, packet-switching telecommunication networks. The protocol, called the Reliable Multicasting Protocol (RMP), was developed incrementally using a combination of formal and informal techniques in an attempt to ensure the correctness of its implementation. Our development process involved three concurrent activities: (1) the initial construction and incremental enhancement of a formal state model of the protocol machine; (2) the initial coding and incremental enhancement of the implementation; and (3) model-based testing of iterative implementations of the protocol. These activities were carried out by two separate teams: a design team and a V&V team. The design team built the first version of RMP with limited functionality to handle only nominal requirements of data delivery. In a series of iterative steps, the design team added new functionality to the implementation while the V&V team kept the state model in fidelity with the implementation. This was done by generating test cases based on suspected errant or off-nominal behaviors predicted by the current model. If the execution of a test was different between the model and implementation, then the differences helped identify inconsistencies between the model and implementation. The dialogue between both teams drove the co-evolution of the model and implementation. Testing served as the vehicle for keeping the model and implementation in fidelity with each other. This paper describes (1) our experiences in developing our process model; and (2) three example problems found during the development of RMP.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
Montgomery, T., Design, Implementation, and Verification of the Reliable Multicasting Protocol, M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, December 1994.
|
 |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
|
| |
6
|
Heninger, K.L., Specifying software for complex systems: New techniques and their application, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Volume 6, Number 1, January 1980.
|
| |
7
|
|
| |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
S. Owre, N. Shankar, and J. M. Rushby, User Guide for the PVS Specification and Verification System (Beta Release), Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, 1991.
|
| |
10
|
|
| |
11
|
J. Burch, E. Clarke, D. Long, K. McMillan, and D. Dill, Symbolic Model Checking for Sequential Circuit Verification, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design, Volume 13, Number 4, April 1994.
|
| |
12
|
|
 |
13
|
|
|