Rigorous specification and conformance testing techniques for network protocols, as applied to TCP, UDP, and sockets

Computer Communication Review

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 265-276

  Bishop, Steve ^a   Fairbairn, Matthew ^a   Norrish, Michael ^b   Sewell, Peter ^a   Smith, Michael ^a   Wansbrough, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

API; Conformance testing; Higher order logic; HOL; Network protocols; Operational semantics; Sockets; Specification; TCP IP

Indexed keywords

API; CONFORMANCE TESTING; HIGHER-ORDER LOGIC; HOL; OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS; SOCKETS; TCP/IP; HIGH-QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION; HIGHER ORDER LOGIC; PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT; PROTOCOL SPECIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATION BASED TESTING;

COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEMS; ELECTRIC CONNECTORS; LOGIC DESIGN; SPECIFICATIONS; COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; FORMAL LOGIC; INTERNET PROTOCOLS; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SEMANTICS; TESTING; TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL;

NETWORK PROTOCOLS; NETWORK ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 33847336583     PISSN: 01464833     EISSN: 01464833     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1090191.1080123     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. R. Alur and B.-Y. Wang. Verifying network protocol implementations by symbolic refinement checking. In Proc. CAV '01, LNCS2102, pages 169-181, 2001.
2. T. E. Anderson, S. Shenker, I. Stoica, and D. Wetherall. Design guidelines for robust internet protocols. Computer Communication Review, 33(1):125-130, 2003.
3. K. Bhargavan, S. Chandra, P. J. McCann, and C. A. Gunter. What packets may come: automata for network monitoring. In Proc. POPL, pages 206-219, 2001.
4. K. Bhargavan, D. Obradovic, and C. A. Gunter. Formal verification of standards for distance vector routing protocols. 7. ACM, 49(4):538-576, 2002.
5. E. Biagioni. A structured TCP in standard ML. In Proc. SIGCOMM '94, pages 36-45, 1994.
6. J. Billington and B. Han. On defining the service provided by TCP. In Proc. ACSC: 26th Australasian Computer Science Conference, Adelaide, 2003.
7. S. Bishop, M. Fairbairn, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, M. Smith, and K. Wansbrough. TCP, UDP, and Sockets: rigorous and experimentally-validated behavioural specification. Volume 1: Overview. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-624, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Mar. 2005. 88pp. Available at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/Netsem/.
8. S. Bishop, M. Fairbairn, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, M. Smith, and K. Wansbrough. TCP, UDP, and Sockets: rigorous and experimentally-validated behavioural specification. Volume 2: The specification. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-625, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Mar. 2005. 386pp. Available at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/Netsem/.
9. C. Castelluccia, W. Dabbous, and S. O'Malley. Generating efficient protocol code from an abstract specification. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 5(4):514-524, 1997. Full version of a paper in SIGCOMM '96.
10. D. Chkliaev, J. Hooman, and E. de Vink. Verification and improvement of the sliding window protocol. In Proc. TACAS'03, LNCS2619, pages 113-127, 2003.
11. M. Compton. Stenning's protocol implemented in UDP and verified in Isabelle. In Proc. 11th CATS, Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium, pages 21-30, 2005.
12. E. Fersman and B. Jonsson. Abstraction of communication channels in Promela: A case study. In Proc. 7th SPIN Workshop, LNCS 1885, pages 187-204, 2000.
13. Fyodor. nmap. http://www.insecure.org/nmap/.
14. M. J. C. Gordon and T. Melham, editors. Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
15. J. Hickey, N. A. Lynch, and R. van Renesse. Specifications and proofs for Ensemble layers. In Proc. TACAS, LNCS 1579, pages 119-133, 1999.
16. R. Hofmann and F. Lemmen. Specification-driven monitoring of TCP/IP. In Proc. 8th Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing, Jan. 2000.
17. The HOL 4 system, Kananaskis-2 release. http://hol.sourcef orge. net/.
18. IEEE and The Open Group. IEEE Std 1003.1™-2001 Standard for Information Technology -Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX®). Dec. 2001. Issue 6. Available http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/toc. htm.
19. The Isabelle proof assistant. http://isabelle.in.turn.de/.
20. IXIA. IxANVL(tm) - automated network validation library, 2005. http://www.ixiacom.com/.
21. E. Kohler, M. F. Kaashoek, and D. R. Montgomery. A readable TCP in the Prolac protocol language. In Proc. SIGGCOMM '99, pages 3-13, August 1999.
22. C. Kreitz. Building reliable, high-performance networks with the Nuprl proof development system. J. Funct. Program., 14(1):21-68, 2004.
23. X. Leroy et al. The Objective-Caml System, Release 3.08.2. INRIA, Nov. 2004. Available http://caml.inria.fr/.
24. S. L. Murphy and A. U. Shankar. A verified connection management protocol for the transport layer. In Proc. SIGCOMM, pages 110-125, 1987.
25. S. L. Murphy and A. U. Shankar. Service specification and protocol construction for the transport layer. In Proc. SIGCOMM, pages 88-97, 1988.
26. M. Musuvathi and D. Engler. Model checking large network protocol implementations. In Proc.NSDI: 1st Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pages 155-168, 2004.
27. M. Norrish, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. Rigour is good for you, and feasible: reflections on formal treatments of C and UDP sockets. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (Saint-Emilion), pages 49-53, Sept. 2002.
28. J. Padhye and S. Floyd. On inferring TCP behaviour. In Proc. SIGCOMM '01, Aug. 2001.
29. S. Parker and C. Schmechel. RFC2398: Some testing tools for TCP implementors, Aug. 1998.
30. V. Paxson. Automated packet trace analysis of TCP implementations. In Proc. SIGCOMM '97, pages 167-179, 1997.
31. J. Postel. A Graph Model. Analysis of Computer Communications Protocols. University of California, Computer Science Department, PhD Thesis, 1974.
32. I. Schieferdecker. Abruptly-terminated connections in TCP -a verification example. In Proc. COST 247 International Workshop on Applied Formal Methods In System Design, June 1996.
33. A. Serjantov, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. The UDP calculus: Rigorous semantics for real networking. Technical Report 515, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, July 2001. http://www.el.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/NetSem/.
34. A. Serjantov, P. Sewell, and K. Wansbrough. The UDP calculus: Rigorous semantics for real networking. In Proc. TACS 2001: Fourth International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software, Tohoku University, Sendai, Oct. 2001.
35. M. A. Smith and K. K. Ramakrishnan. Formal specification and verification of safety and performance of TCP selective acknowledgment. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 10(2): 193-207, 2002.
36. M. A. S. Smith. Formal verification of communication protocols. In Proc. FORTE IX/PSTV XVI, pages 129-144, 1996.
37. W. R. Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 1: The Protocols. 1994.
38. W. R. Stevens. UNIX Network Programming Vol. 1: Networking APIs: Sockets and XTI. Second edition, 1998.
39. K. Wansbrough, M. Norrish, P. Sewell, and A. Serjantov. Timing UDP: mechanized semantics for sockets, threads and failures. In Proceedings of ESOP 2002: the 11th European Symposium on Programming (Grenoble), LNCS 2305, pages 278-294, Apr. 2002.
40. G. R. Wright and W. R. Stevens. TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 2: The Implementation. 1995.