Communication Requirements for Team Automata

Beek, Maurice H. ter; Carmona, Josep; Hennicker, Rolf; Kleijn, Jetty

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59746-1_14

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most important issues for future research concern (a) the consideration of other compatibility problems, e.g., that a component waiting for some input will eventually get it [5], and (b) the extension of our approach to treat multi-component systems. The latter is a particularly challenging task.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Synchronous and Asynchronous Compatibility of Communicating Components

Hennicker

Bidoit

Dang

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study interacting components and their compatibility with respect to synchronous and asynchronous composition. The behavior of components is formalized by I/O-transition systems. Synchronous composition is based on simultaneous execution of shared output and input actions of two components while asynchronous composition uses unbounded FIFO-buffers for message transfer. In both contexts we study compatibility notions based on the idea that any output issued by one component should be accepted as an input by the other. We distinguish between strong and weak versions of compatibility, the latter allowing the execution of internal actions before a message is accepted. We consider open systems and study conditions under which (strong/weak) synchronous compatibility is sufficient and necessary to get (strong/weak) asynchronous compatibility. We show that these conditions characterize half-duplex systems. Then we focus on the verification of weak asynchronous compatibility for possibly non half-duplex systems and provide a decidable criterion that ensures weak asynchronous compatibility. We investigate conditions under which this criterion is complete, i.e. if it is not satisfied then the asynchronous system is not weakly asynchronously compatible. Finally, we discuss deadlock-freeness and investigate relationships between deadlock-freeness in the synchronous and in the asynchronous case.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Synchronous and Asynchronous Compatibility of Communicating Components

Hennicker

Bidoit

Dang

2016

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conditions for safe communication in terms of receptiveness and responsiveness were considered in [2,11,17,21] for (web) services and in [6,7,9,15] for team automata. Output actions not accepted as input by some component are considered as message loss or as unspecified receptions [12,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Orthogonally, we recognise indefinite waiting for input to be received in the form of an appropriate output action provided by another component [14]. Since input relies on external choice, it is sufficient if only one of the enabled input actions is responded to (by other components), which we call responsiveness [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [6], a representative set of synchronisation types was defined to classify synchronisation policies (e.g., binary communication, multi-cast communication, full synchronisation) realisable in team automata in terms of ranges for the number of sender and receiver components that can participate in a system communication. Moreover, a generic procedure was provided to derive requirements for receptiveness and responsiveness for each synchronisation type.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the short paper contribution [9], we briefly reviewed our previous approach from [6] and we identified some limitations leading to issues for future research. A first issue was that the assignment of a single synchronisation type to a team, as in [6], is too restrictive and that we need to fine tune the number of synchronising sending and receiving components per action. For this purpose we introduce, in the current paper, synchronisation type specifications which assign a synchronisation type individually to each communicating action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

Beek

Hennicker

Kleijn

2020

Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study guarantees for safe communication in systems of systems composed of reactive components that communicate through synchronised execution of common actions. Systems are modelled as (extended) team automata, in which, in principle, any number of component automata can participate in the execution of a communicating action, either as a sender or as a receiver. We extend team automata with synchronisation type specifications, which determine specific synchronisation policies fine-tuned for particular application domains. On the other hand, synchronisation type specifications generate communication requirements for receptiveness and responsiveness. We propose a new, liberal version of requirement satisfaction which allows teams to execute arbitrary intermediate actions before being ready for the required communication, which is important in practice. Then we turn to the composition of systems and show that composition behaves well with respect to synchronisation type specifications. As a central result, we investigate criteria that ensure the preservation of local communication properties when (extended) team automata are composed. This is particularly challenging in the context of weak requirement satisfaction. This apparently simple generalisation has a significant consequence: among the 'arbitrary other actions' there may be output or input actions open to the environment. This is a potentially dangerous situation, since in this case local communication properties can be violated after composition with other teams. This leads us to the third, perhaps most important, contribution of the current paper. We consider composition of systems and of teams. First, we show that composition behaves well with synchronisation types (Theorem 1). Then we investigate conditions under which communication properties are preserved by ETA composition. The principle idea is that for this it should be sufficient to consider interface actions and to check (global) compliance conditions for them. We formulate appropriate conditions, first for the case of (strong) receptiveness and responsiveness (Theorem 2) and then for the weak variant of the two, solving the problem sketched above (Theorem 3). An intuitive running example guides the reader through the paper. Outline After introducing extended team automata (ETA) in Section 2, we consider synchronisation type specifications and ETA determined by them in Section 3. (Weak) compliance of ETA with communication requirements and safe communication are treated in Section 4. In Section 5, we define the composition of systems and of teams, and we show that this works well with synchronisation type specifications. In Section 6, we provide our main compositionality results. Full proofs and some insightful counterexamples of the results presented in the latter two sections can be found in Appendices A and B. After discussing related work in Section 7, we conclude the paper in Section 8.

show abstract

X-by-C: Non-functional Security Challenges

Given-Wilson

Legay

2018

Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication Requirements for Team Automata

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

On Synchronous and Asynchronous Compatibility of Communicating Components

On Synchronous and Asynchronous Compatibility of Communicating Components

Compositionality of Safe Communication in Systems of Team Automata

X-by-C: Non-functional Security Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About