Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extend model by protocol sessions #47

Closed
senier opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #382
Closed

Extend model by protocol sessions #47

senier opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #382
Assignees
Labels
model Related to model package (e.g., model verification)

Comments

@senier
Copy link
Member

senier commented Mar 12, 2019

Extend the RecordFlux model by a concept to express automata, including states, transitions, conditions and actions. Dynamic properties should be expressible by some temporal logic.

As an intermediate step, when no session syntax is available, we use the YAML-based representation introduced for GreenTLS. To develop and validate those models, the cli is extended to parse the YAML sessions files.

@senier senier created this issue from a note in RecordFlux Future (To do) Mar 12, 2019
@senier senier removed this from To do in RecordFlux Future May 8, 2020
@senier senier added this to To do in RecordFlux 0.5 via automation May 8, 2020
@senier senier changed the title Support dynamic protocol semantics Protocol sessions Jun 4, 2020
@senier senier changed the title Protocol sessions Extend model by protocol sessions Jun 17, 2020
@senier senier added the model Related to model package (e.g., model verification) label Jun 17, 2020
@treiher treiher moved this from To do to In progress in RecordFlux 0.5 Jul 24, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
At least in our current TLS models, state names may have (multiple) dots, which
is incompatible with ID. It sounds preferable, in general, to have a distinct
name space for states anyways.

Ref. #47
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2020
@senier senier moved this from In progress to Ready in RecordFlux 0.5 Aug 1, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 11, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
senier pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
RecordFlux 0.5 automation moved this from Ready to Merged Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
At least in our current TLS models, state names may have (multiple) dots, which
is incompatible with ID. It sounds preferable, in general, to have a distinct
name space for states anyways.

Ref. #47
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
treiher added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2020
@treiher treiher mentioned this issue Aug 4, 2021
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
model Related to model package (e.g., model verification)
Projects
No open projects
RecordFlux 0.5
  
Merged
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant