ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
An approach to verification and validation of a reliable multicasting protocol
Full text PdfPdf (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
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 11,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/229000.226316
What is a DOI?

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


Collaborative Colleagues:
John R. Callahan: colleagues
Todd L. Montgomery: colleagues