Abstract
The need of communication protocols in today’s environment increases as much as the network explores. Many new kinds of protocols, e.g. for information sharing, security, etc., are being developed day-to-day which often leads to rapid, premature developments. Many protocols have not scaled to satisfy important properties like deadlock and livelock freedom, since MDA focuses on the rapid development rather than on the quality of the developed models. In order to fix the above, we introduce a 2-Phase strategy based on the UML state machine and sequence diagram. The state machine is converted into PROMELA code as a protocol model and its properties are derived from the sequence diagram as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) through automation. The PROMELA code is interpreted through the SPIN model checker, which helps to simulate the behavior of protocol. Later the automated LTL properties are supplemented to the SPIN for the verification of protocol properties. The results are compared with the developed UML model and SPIN simulated model. Our test results impress the designer to verify the expected results with the system design and to identify the errors which are unnoticed during the design phase.
Highlights
Due to the huge complexity of modern software systems, it is required to specify precisely what a software component should do and how it should behave [1]
If the final implementation deviates from the expected behavior, the use of the developed component may fail. This applies for the development of communicating protocols as they are merely implemented in the software
Model driven architecture is an approach to software development based on the modeling and automated mapping of models
Summary
Due to the huge complexity of modern software systems, it is required to specify precisely what a software component should do and how it should behave [1]. If the final implementation deviates from the expected behavior, the use of the developed component may fail. This applies for the development of communicating protocols as they are merely implemented in the software. The UML semantics is described in natural English language which includes semantic variation points that leave some semantics issues deliberately open This desirable property represents a drawback from the verification point of view. We model the behavior view by UML state charts and activity diagrams They are translated as a combination of state charts with the semantics of activity diagrams into PROMELA (PROcess MEta LAnguage) [4]. Some final remarks and an outlook on future work which concludes the paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
