K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
On Bisimulation, Fault-Monotonicity and . . . - Janowski (1997) (Correct)
.... to a fault assumption F aults and a specification Spec, we only proceed to prove correctness of an implementation T (Impl; F aults) representing syntactically how Impl behaves in the presence of F aults [12, 13, 7] this reduction is most common without introducing the transformation T explicitly [5, 4, 10, 18, 14, 15, 17, 11, 3, 19]. Although attractive for many reasons, e.g. reuse of a variety of tools and techniques already available for proving correctness, the method also raises some questions about its feasibility and applicability. Feasibility: correctness under all anticipated faults is necessary for provable ....
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
The Sliding Window Protocol Revisited - Jan Van De (Correct)
....addressed (and only by example) Of the references, however, it is the only one that mentions the selective retry that turned out to be essential for progress. In [7] some safety properties are established (in an elegant way) We quote however it is not shown that the protocol will progress . In [6], the situation is similar. It establishes safety properties and also that if the media are live then so too are the protocols . However, this does not exclude livelock. In [5] it is shown that the alternating bit protocol satisfies both safety and progress requirements. It is shown that the ....
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
Automated Formal Analysis of Networks: FDR Models of.. - Reed, Jackson.. (1998) (7 citations) (Correct)
....support is to prove that an implementation satisfies a variation of what is sometimes known as the COPY property, whereby a message is passed by a black box process from a specific sender to a specific receiver. Examples include the alternating bit, sliding window, and multiplexed switches [PS91,FDR94]. In all of these examples the black box connecting the sender to the receiver is refined by an implementation with a fixed number of subcomponents, each with a fixed interface (set of communication channels) An arbitrary network topology is modelled with action systems [But92] and extended in ....
K Paliwoda and JW Sanders. An Incremental Specification of the Slidingwindow Protocol. Distributed Computing. May 1991, pp 83-94.
A Stepwise Development of the Alternating Bit Protocol - Wabenhorst (Correct)
....in the proof results not from fairness, but from unbounded nondeterminism. The Alternating Bit Protocol (ABP) is an important case study because it has been used as a benchmark against which to test several new theories. As a result, it has been dealt with extensively in the literature [Mil80, PS91, Sne95, CM88, Col95]. We discuss it here for the same reason, and to gain an understanding of the results of previous sections. In common with many other algorithms and protocols, the ABP has either not been verified rigorously, or has been proven correct using ad hoc methods which cannot be transported easily to ....
K. Paliwoda, J.W. Sanders, An Incremental Specification of the Sliding-Window Protocol, Distributed Computing, Vol. 5, 1991
On Bisimulation, Fault-Monotonicity and Provable Fault-Tolerance - Janowski (1997) (Correct)
.... a fault assumption F aults and a specification Spec, we only proceed to prove correctness of an implementation T (Impl; F aults) representing syntactically how Impl behaves in the presence of F aults [12, 13, 7] this reduction is most common without introducing the transformation T explicitly [5, 4, 10, 18, 14, 15, 17, 11, 3, 19]. Although attractive for many reasons, e.g. reuse of a variety of tools and techniques already available for proving correctness, the method also raises some questions about its feasibility and applicability. Feasibility: correctness under all anticipated faults is necessary for provable ....
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
A Trace-Based Compositional Proof Theory for Fault Tolerant.. - Schepers, Hooman (1993) (1 citation) (Correct)
....rule, has been added to capture acceptable executions. We illustrated our method by proving safety of a triple modular redundant system and the alternating bit protocol, using only the specifications of the components. The proof of correctness of the alternating bit protocol that appears in [18] is also based on traces. There, a less natural specification of the receiver, which contains the requirement that non duplicate input messages have alternating bits, evades the necessity to prove the property of persistency. In this paper we only considered safety properties, ignoring liveness ....
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders, An incremental specification of the sliding window protocol, Distributed Computing 5 (1991) 83--94.
First-Order Future Interval Logic - Kutty Moser (1994) (1 citation) (Correct)
....embedded in first order PTL by representing a number i as the value of a specified variable at time i. As an example application of first order FIL, we consider the sliding window protocol. Other formal techniques have been used to specify the sliding window protocol, for instance, HOL [3] CSP [11], and Estelle [13] The HOL description is axiomatic with explicit quantification over time. The CSP specification is process algebraic in nature and represents the system using a set of processes that communicate with each other over channels. The Estelle specification is essentially procedural. ....
Paliwoda, K. and Sanders, J. W., "An incremental specification of the sliding window protocol," Distributed Computing, no. 5, pp. 83-94, 1991.
Verifying a Sliding Window Protocol in μCRL - Fokkink, Groote, Pang, Badban, .. (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
The Concurrency Column - Aceto (Correct)
No context found.
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
Verifying a Sliding Window Protocol in μCRL - Fokkink, Groote, Pang, Badban, .. (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
K. Paliwoda and J.W. Sanders. An incremental specification of the sliding-window protocol. Distributed Computing, 5:83--94, 1991.
Verifying End-to-End Protocols Using Induction with CSP/FDR - Creese, Reed (1999) (2 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
K Paliwoda and JW Sanders. An Incremental Specification of the Slidingwindow Protocol. Distributed Computing. May 1991, pp 83-94.
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