Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-07-27

Meeting called to order: 11:09 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren

By Proxy:

Adam Ley
Heiko Ehrenberg
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of July 13 minutes (draft circulated 07/13/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

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.
  • All: Identify possible exclusion from the PAR Scope - manage reader expectations. Comments to be posted to the forums (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1157#p1157). COMPLETED by this meeting.

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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Continue PAR discussion
- Review "Purpose" statement

  • Although the intent at the previous meeting had been to review the Purpose statement it became prudent to reassess the Scope first for possible exclusions and this meeting would continue from there.
  • {Brad shared Slide 21, the current state of the Scope}
  • There was an outstanding, incomplete suggestion from the previous meeting to exclude the implication of intent to replace or subvert any existing standard. Ian was concerned about the implication of citing specific standards and Eric wanted to capture the notion of augmenting the existing standards. Ian wondered if the "methods" referred to in the first sentence should be "methods and/or standards".
  • {Brad created a copy of the Scope on Slide 25 for editing}
  • The additional bullet was merged in as the third sentence.
  • Brad suggested that we should be talking about "access standards" but wondered if it was obvious enough to most readers what standards we meant by that. "Device interface standards" was an alternative suggestion.
  • After some re-wording throughout, it was felt there was redundancy between the second and third sentences and it was felt it would be easier to resolve by swapping them round and then merging them, reducing the word count and improving readability.
  • Eric was concerned by the phrase "describe a system" as we didn't intend to give such a description. Brad agreed that the intent was to describe "how to use" a system.
  • The text was compared against the questions (on Slide 23) that Adam had proposed the Scope needed to answer. The group agreed that it answered them adequately.
  • Moving on the Purpose, Brad referred to Ian's previous observation that it currently read more like the Need. Indeed, the slide title suggested it was the "why", which is the question that the Need is expected to answer. Ian still felt it was the "Need" but may still need some refinement of the text to be used for that purpose.
  • Brad copied the text to Slide 27, retitling it as "Need", and created a new Slide 26 for "Purpose" (the aims of the standard) {shared}.
  • Brad started to capture bullet points for this before time ran out.
  • As there was only a small group on the call, Ian felt the rest of the group needed to approve the Scope edits, so that should be a review task for the coming week {ACTION}.
  • The group needs to think of what SJTAG's aims for the standard are for next week {ACTION}.
  • Revised Scope (Slide 25):
    • SCOPE: This standard defines methods to allow, in conjunction with existing methods, for the coordination and control of device, board, and sub-system test interfaces to extend access to the system level. The standard does not replace or provide an alternative to existing test interface standards, but aims instead to leverage them by defining a description to better manage how they are used in the system.
  • Purpose bullets (Slide 26):
    • PURPOSE:
    • Seamless Access
      • system, board, device meld into a uniform description (Abstraction of “Assembly”)
      • Metamorphosis into a common interface description
      • A delineation between topology and physical structure (topology is more important to SJTAG) (Behavioral aspects than structural)
    • Problem Domain (what we are trying to do)
      • Inadequacy of existing standards
  • Need (slide 27):
    • NEED: A standardized method is needed to coordinate component access topologies, interface constraints, and other dependencies at the board and system level in order to be able to effectively leverage the existing and future component level standards. Thus, a new supervisory standard is required to define the coordination and dependencies of instruments as well as configuration, management, and application of vector based testing at the board and system levels. IEEE 1687 and IEEE 1149.1-2013 provide methods for describing each of the instrument interfaces on a per component basis, but fail to provide the contextual prerequisites for the dependence on each instrument configuration and/or aggregation of multiple instruments for the overall board and/or system maintenance operations. Further, many components only support non-JTAG interfaces (e.g., I2C or SPI) to their instrumentation registers.
  • For next week:
  • The revised slide pack has been added to the file manager: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SCOPE%20DRAFT20160727.pptx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue PAR discussion
    • Reviewing "Purpose" or Aims for the standard.
    • Distil concise paragraph for formal Need clause in PAR.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
    • Definition of "interchangeability" required.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.
    • 'Master through Slave Mode'
    • 'Master to Master Mode'

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting August 3.
  • August schedule:
    • 10, 17, 24, 31.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:05 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh