Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

M. R. Otp

dblp:17/2827 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1989
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Computer networks · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
1 paper
Network management and operations · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network management and operations › network testing
protocol conformance testing
0.011989
An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOS · SIGCOMM 1989
Automata and formal languages › finite automata
finite state machine testing
0.011989
An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOS · SIGCOMM 1989

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

unique input/output sequences · 0.0distinguishing sequences · 0.0distinguishing sequence · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1989 An Improved Protocol Test Generation Procedure Based on UIOS
abstract
This paper shows the Unique Input/Output, UIO, approach and the Distinguishing Sequence, DS, approach for the conformance testing of protocol implementations do not always produce identical fault converges, contrary to a previous claim. In the UIO approach, when UIO sequences and signatures are not unique in an implementation, they may not be able to detect erroneous states in the implementation. The UIO approach is revised here with the addition of a verification procedure to ensure that the UIO sequences are all unique in an implementation. Since signatures are generally not unique, this revision requires substituting the use of a signature for a state, S, with a set of input/output sequences, IO(S,K)s, unique to S, each of which distinguishes S from at least one other state, K. Verification is then applied to the IO(S,K)s. Fault coverage in the revised UIO, UIOv, approach is better than that in the original approach. A uniqueness criterion is discussed here to capture a desirable fault coverage for finite-state machine, FSM, test sequences. This criterion ensures the detection of any faulty FSM implementation provided that its set of states does not exceed that in the specified FSM. It is shown that test sequences generated by the UIOv approach and the DS approach always satisfy the uniqueness criterion. In fact, the DS approach is a special case of the UIOv approach; however, the UIOv approach has wider applicability and is generally applicable to k-distinguishable FSMs.
W. Y. L. Chan, C. T. Vuong, M. R. Otp
SIGCOMM3