fixed some small errors in the report

[tt2015.git] / a3 / 1modelingTCP.tex

diff --git a/a3/1modelingTCP.tex b/a3/1modelingTCP.tex
index 0db7faf..20b8500 100644 (file)
--- a/a3/1modelingTCP.tex
+++ b/a3/1modelingTCP.tex
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ client behaviour such as dropping packets on purpose or tampering with hashes.
 TCP inherently is a state based system and thus we have considered the
 following models.
 
-\paragraph{Labeled Transition System (LTS)}. A LTS would 
+\paragraph{Labeled Transition System (LTS)} A LTS would 
 be a fitting technique to model the SUT in since the 
 behaviour of TCP is that both the server and the client have internal states to
 which they transition based upon input coming from the other.
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ LTS would not be a compelling choice if we would test tampering with data and
 erroneous clients or servers since LTS is purely input output and by default
 there is no data involved.
 
-\paragraph{Properties}. Describing TCP in terms of properties would in theory
+\paragraph{Properties} Describing TCP in terms of properties would in theory
 be possible but it would require a very different adapter. The adapter should
 be handed a trace and it should run the entire trace and return the sequence of
 flags sent and received. Because of the high adapter complexity and the