By Tommy M. McGuire
There are teams of researchers who're attracted to designing community protocols and who can't (yet) successfully converse with each other c- cerning those protocols. the 1st is the crowd of protocol verifiers, and the second one is the crowd of protocol implementors. the most explanation for the shortcoming of potent conversation among those teams is that those teams use languages with particularly diversified semantics to specify community protocols. On one hand, the protocol verifiers use specification languages whose semantics are summary, coarse-grained, and with huge atom- ity. in actual fact, protocol requisites which are built in keeping with such semantics are more straightforward to end up right. nevertheless, the protocol implementors use specification languages whose semantics are concrete, fine-grained, and with small atomicity. Protocol necessities which are constructed in keeping with such - mantics are more straightforward to enforce utilizing method programming languages comparable to C, C++, and Java. to aid in remaining this conversation hole among the gang of protocol verifiers and the gang of protocol implementors, we found in this monograph a protocol specification language referred to as the Timed summary Protocol (or faucet, for brief) notation. This notation is tremendously stimulated via the summary Protocol Notation within the textbook parts of community Protocol layout, written via the second one writer, Mohamed G. Gouda. the faucet notation has sorts of sem- tics: an summary semantics that appeals to the protocol verifiers and a concrete semantics thatappeals to the protocol implementors team.