Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!cos.UUCP!duc
From: duc@cos.UUCP.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: AI in Network Protocols.
Message-ID: <197@cos.COM>
Date: Tue, 7-Apr-87 08:21:24 EST
Article-I.D.: cos.197
Posted: Tue Apr  7 08:21:24 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 03:08:25 EST
References: <8702280810.AA09316@cs-gw.D.UMN.EDU> <8703061855.AA01988@cognos.uucp>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA
Lines: 17
Keywords: AI PROTOCOLS
Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com
Summary: Perhaps, a more concise/intelligent notation to capture both the syntax and semantic of the protocol



	I think this is a very interesting topic for discussion.
	Typically a protocol specification contains some BNF notation 
	for the syntactical definition (e.g., X.400, etc...) and the binding 
	(or usage/meaning) of the components' values is burried in the 'english'
	text of the spec.  The effect of this is the lack of a more 'complete'
	and/or formal notation to capture both the syntax and semantic in order
	for automating a testing system (to test the protocol) and/or
	determining a set of test cases to be 'partially' (or even wholly)  
	complete to test a set of functionalities of the protocol (and
	therefore a result analysis system can be automated).
		Maybe, a knowledge-based system will solve this, but I
	prefer not to think about a database-driven approach until no can-do.

					Duc Kim Nguyen
					Corporation for Open Systems