B. Hailpern and S. Owicki. Verifying network protocols using temporal logic. In Proc. NBS/IEEE Symposium on Trends and Applications 1980: Computer Network Protocols, Gaithersburg, MD, May 1980, pages 18--28. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1980.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....former contains fewer primitive concepts. It is not necessary to draw distinctions between variables, processes, and systems of processes, and the definitions of composition and abstraction are simplified by avoiding these distinctions. 29 1.4. 3 Temporal Logic Specification Several authors [Hailpern80, Lamport83, Schwartz81] have proposed the use of temporal logic as a specification language and a vehicle for expressing correctness proofs. The use of temporal logic as a sPecification language evolved gradually from its use as an assertion language, that is, as a language for expressing ....

....correctly implement the Service specification for the alternating bit protocol. Experience gained from the examples presented in this thesis suggests that specifications that have not been used in a proof of correctness are quite likely to contain errors. 32 Hailpern and Owicki [Hailpern80] propose a style of temporal logic specification that is different from the styles of LampoR and of Schwartz and Melliar Smith. Hailpern and Owicki also use the alternating bit protocol as an example to illustrate their approach to specification. n addition to symbols representing components of ....

Hailpern, B.T., Owicki, S.S., "Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic," Technical Report No. 192, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, June, 1980.

....from an implementation to a temporal logic characterization of its behavior, and this problem is often swept under the rug. A great deal of work in temporal logic concerns reasoning about system correctness after system components have been specified in terms of temporal logic (see, for example, HO80] SMS81] OL82] Lam83] Sta84] and [NGO85] The most dramatic distinction between these works is the way in which temporal logic is used to describe system behavior. Schwartz and Melliar Smith give purely temporal specifications of programs in [SMS81] In these specifications, even the ....

....are quite complex, involving nested until operators in addition to the temporal operators described above. These specifications are often difficult to understand, and difficult to reason about. On the other hand, Hailpern and Owicki make great use of the notion of program state in [HO80] They add history variables to the program state that describe the history of events over communication links, and reason about the values assumed by these variables. History variables are a convenient descriptive tool found in many proof styles, and the specifications produced by Hailpern and ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Brent Hailpern and Susan Owicki. Verifying network protocols using temporal logic. In Proceedings Trends and Applications 1980: Computer Network Protocols, pages 18--28. IEEE Computer Society, May 1980. Also appeared as Technical Report 192, Computation Systems Laboratory, Stanford University.

....A process 1 can be characterized in terms of the possible histories of its accesses to variables. A specification describes a process by stating properties that are required to hold of all possible histories for that process. As has been shown by a number of authors ( BK83] BK84] Lam83] [HO80], SM81] such process specifications can be expressed as sentences in linear time temporal logic. One of the difficulties with temporal logic as a specification language is that, at least in the most basic formulations, it is lacking in expressive power. This lack of expressive power can be ....

....specifications is not new, having been proposed previously in various forms by a number of authors. Yonezawa ( Yon77] describes a specification method that uses conceptual representations, to specify behaviors in the actor model of computation. The history variables of Hailpern and Owicki ([HO80]) can be viewed as a kind of conceptual state variables, whose values represent the sequences of values passed between processes up until a particular instant. Lamport ( Lam83] describes a specification technique in which a specification is permitted to refer to a collection of indeterminate ....

B. T. Hailpern and S. S. Owicki. Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic. Technical Report 192, Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory, June 1980.

....made about the environment, and a component part, which captures committments made by the module being specified. Jones, as well as Barringer and Kuiper, exploit the rely guarantee condition structure of specifications by defining inference rules for process composition. Hailpern and Owicki [HO80] have performed some example proofs in which liveness properties (expressed in temporal logic) for network protocols are derived from more primitive liveness properties satisfied by each of the constituent processes. Although they are successful at constructing proofs for examples of reasonable ....

B. T. Hailpern, S. S. Owicki, "Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic," Technical Report No. 192, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, June, 1980.

....of the histories of its accesses to variables possible during each of its executions. 1 A specification describes a process by stating properties that are required to hold of all histories that can be produced by that process. As has been shown by a number of authors ( BK83] BK84] Lam83] [HO80], SM81] such process specifications can be expressed as sentences in linear time temporal logic. One of the difficulties with temporal logic as a specification language is that, at least in the most basic formulations, it is lacking in expressive power. This lack of expressive power can be ....

....specifications is not new, having been proposed previously in various forms by a number of authors. Yonezawa ( Yon77] describes a specification method that uses conceptual representations, to specify behaviors in the actor model of computation. The history variables of Hailpern and Owicki ([HO80]) can be viewed as a kind of conceptual state variable, whose values represent the sequences of values passed between processes up until a particular instant. Lamport ( Lam83] describes a specification technique in which a specification is permitted to refer to a collection of indeterminate ....

B. T. Hailpern, S. S. Owicki, "Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic," Technical Report No. 192, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, June, 1980.

....made about the environment, and a component part, which captures committments made by the module being specified. Jones, as well as Barringer and Kuiper, exploit the rely guarantee condition structure of specifications by defining inference rules for process composition. Hailpern and Owicki [HO80] have performed some example proofs in which liveness properties (expressed in temporal logic) for network protocols are derived from more prim3 itive liveness properties satisfied by each of the constituent processes. Although they are successful at constructing proofs for examples of reasonable ....

B. T. Hailpern, S. S. Owicki, "Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic," Technical Report No. 192, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, June, 1980.

No context found.

B. Hailpern and S. Owicki. Verifying network protocols using temporal logic. In Proc. NBS/IEEE Symposium on Trends and Applications 1980: Computer Network Protocols, Gaithersburg, MD, May 1980, pages 18--28. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1980.

No context found.

Hailpern, B. T., and Owicki, S. S., Verifying Network Protocols Using Temporal Logic, In Proceedings Trends and Applications 1980: Computer Network Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1980, pp. 18-28.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC