Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2014-11-03

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Carl Walker
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood
Brad Van Treuren
Tim Pender 
Brian Erickson (joined 11:12)

Adam Ley
Michele Portolan

2. Review and approve previous minutes:


  • Draft circulated 10/14/2014.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Brad. No objections or abstentions.


  • Draft circulated 10/20/2014.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Peter moved to approve, seconded by Tim. No objections or abstentions.


  • Draft circulated 10/27/2014.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Brad moved to approve, seconded by Carl. No objections or abstentions.

3. Review old action items

  • All: do we feel SJTAG is requiring a new test language to obtain the information needed for diagnostics or is STAPL/SVF sufficient? See also Gunnar's presentation, in particular the new information he'd be looking for in a test language (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Ian: Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.
  • Ian: Re-work the Infrastructure diagram for the Green Paper. COMPLETE
  • Brad: Add references list to Green Paper. COMPLETE
  • Brad: Ensure all references to standards in the Green Paper include the "IEEE" prefix. COMPLETE
  • Brad: Amend the Observations and Conclusions section of the Green Paper to state that it is not intended to make a recommendation but to leave it to reader to draw their own conclusions and to encourage reader feedback. COMPLETE

4. Reminders

  • Consider Adam's three points (from the action from the first weekly meeting) and suggest what is preventing us from answering those questions:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Forum thread for discussion: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172

5. Discussion Topics

a. Green Paper approval.

  • {Website copy shared}
  • {Brian joined}
  • This copy included all the most recent update suggestions although Ian noted that Heiko had questioned the use of the phrase "I plan to present..." in the abstract as it appeared as if it may be an outdated statement from an early draft of the Newsletter.  Brad agreed with Ian's interpretation that it was meant to convey the intent of the paper, and Heiko was happy with that.
  • Brad asked if the group found the paper to be useful or beneficial, which seemed to be the case, Tim in particular commenting that he found it informative as he had little prior knowledge of some of the standards that are referenced.  Brad added that the benefit for us should be to help get readers quickly up to speed on the problems that SJTAG is trying to deal with and so help us get the feedback we need.
  • There were no other comments, although Ian remarked that this was "a bit more of a read" that the previous Green Paper.  The length was probably about the maximum that a single article could comfortably be.  Brad acknowledged that many other published articles may only be half as long, but the subject could sometimes require even more expansive coverage.
  • Eric congratulated Brad on the paper.
  • Eric moved to approve the Green Paper for publication, seconded by Brian with no objections or abstentions.  Ian will publish on the website {ACTION}.  

b. Newsletter approval.

  • {Current draft shared}
  • Ian described some changes that had been made since this was last discussed by the group:
    • The correct diagram for the main item has now been included.
    • The ITC item has a very brief summary of Michele's comments on the poster session.
    • The item on Michele's demonstration has been fleshed out with a firm date of November 17 (November 24 is a fall-back option in case of problems).
  • As an aside, Heiko felt that ITC itself was still very much IC-centric.  Brian noted that only two technical sessions mentioned JTAG but neither talked about board level or above.
  • There were no further comments on the Newsletter.
  • Eric moved to approve the Newsletter for publication, seconded by Peter with no objections or abstentions.  Ian will publish the Newsletter after the Green Paper goes "live" {ACTION}.

c. IJTAG Engine demonstration

  • The date had been agreed with Michele for November 17th.  Michele wanted to do it before December and this allows the 24th to be kept as a "rain date" in case of problems.  However Michele would like an opportunity to try screen sharing before the actual event as he was worried that his VM window may appear too small for some people to see clearly enough.  We could do this during the next regular meeting on 10th or perhaps set up a special session on Wednesday 12th in the old P1687 slot.  General feeling was to go with the 10th.
  • Ian had made a LinkedIn post in the SJTAG group to announce the event.  Gunnar had already replied that he wished to participate.
  • Brad was concerned that Michele may be limited in what questions he could answer due to legal reasons surrounding the TISA technology.  Ian acknowledged and noted that the Newsletter and LinkedIn posts simply referred to the IEEExplore citations for the Design & Test article (Michele had advised his concerns that some things might appear to "come from nowhere" but that it would be problematic to share the D&T article directly).
  • Brad commented that much of what is in the engine could be transferred to the re-targetter proposed in 1687 but that TISA made it a lot more streamlined.
  • Ian asked Carl about the best was to pass on invites to "guests".  Carl thought it was enough to simply forward an existing invite, so long as "Host" privileges were not required.  That would not be an issue and Ian was actually considering muting guests, although it should be sufficient if the Presenter and Host are separate people, so that the Host can moderate the session. Ian didn't want to overload the system/event but hoped that the demonstration would act as a magnet for some people who may have been sitting around the fringes.
  • Ian asked if Brad would care to do an introduction immediately prior to the demonstration.  Brad agreed and remarked that this tied in well with the Green Paper and was partly why Michele thought it was a good time to do this.  It shows that Access Links and Data Links can be kept separate while retaining the possibility of automating path selection.
  • Brad didn't recall any similar physical demonstration in the early days of IJTAG although a lot of papers and presentations were created.  Ian remarked that it required a level of faith to commit to doing that when there is no concrete path set out to guarantee that it wouldn't turn out to be nugatory work.

d. Test Managers - Primary and alternate cases

  • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

e. SJTAG Standards Roadmap - continue organising topics.

  • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

7. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.

8. Schedule next meeting

  • November 10, Heiko is likely to be absent.
  • November schedule: 17, 24.

9. Any other business

  • IEEE Std 1687 is now officially approved.

10. Review new action items

  • Ian: Publish Green Paper on website (today).
  • Ian: Publish Newsletter (tomorrow).

11. Adjourn

Brian moved to adjourn at 11:50 AM EST, seconded by Tim.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh