Minutes of Study Group Meeting, 2018-03-19

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_28.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions Ltd.) (joined 11:32)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (ARM)
Mukund Modi (NAVAIR Lakehurst)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Dilipan Jayachandran (SEL, Inc.)
Russell Shannon (NAVAIR Lakehurst) (joined 11:10)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Bill Eklow (Retired)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • March 12
    • Updated draft circulated 03/14/18
    • No further corrections.
    • Terry moved to approve, seconded by Jon, no objections or abstentions. Approved.

4. Review Open Action Items

  • {Slide 11}
  • [21.1] Brad: Supply Ian with glossary definitions used by 1687.1 for "transformation" and "retargeting".
    • These will be coming in the draft standard.
    • ONGOING.
  • [27.1] Brad to provide Ian with links to the tables of interfaces.
    • Completed immediately after meeting.
  • [27.2] Legacy Initiative Group to propose definition for "SJTAG".

5. Discussion Topics

a) PAR - Refine PAR Scope text.

  • {Slide12 - headings}
  • Are we happy that the Scope statement is right for what we declare to be STAM?
  • {Slide 13 - Draft Scope}
  • This is draft text as proposed by the "Initiative group". Questions are to stimulate thought.
  • We talk about "test interfaces" but really we mean more than just "test" interfaces, e.g. Ethernet, I2C and SPI which can be used for test but aren't intended as test interfaces. maybe "diverse sub-system interfaces" instead?
  • Maybe "extend access" should become "extend test access" then other references to "test" are not needed. But is it only "test access"? Is, for example, programming "test"? It might be but it also might not. The access supports test. The standard is assumed to primarily be focussed on test. It's possibly general enough that people will infer other uses, including diagnostics and prognostics.
  • Do we assume only wired interfaces or is wireless included? Wireless hasn't been expressly considered but it wasn't intended to be excluded. The possibility of distributed systems, e.g. including cellular technology, was discussed a long time ago. We probably don't need to expressly include wireless (or optical) but we should endeavour not to preclude it.
  • Brad shared an editable copy of the Scope slide to capture the suggested changes - the collected markups are included in the additional slides: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_28_bgvt_Changes.pdf. The following are additional notes on discussion that may not be apparent from the markup:
    • Should we be mentioning the "framework" that we expect to provide to build on? It's possibly covered by the first sentence.
    • We will propose the PAR but we don't have total control over the wording - TTSC or RevCom could send the PAR back for re-work if they feel something isn't clear in their view.
    • "Defines" could become either "describes" or "provides". "Describes" seems to fit better with what a standard should be doing.
    • Do we need a vote on changing the name from "SJTAG" to "STAM"? Not necessary; the study group is already known to TTSC as "System Test Access Management" and that's what the PAR would show. Any working group would then be working on "STAM". SJTAG remains as a "banner" under which other related standards could emerge. Consider STAM as the first standard under SJTAG.
    • The provisional standard number is allocated when the PAR is approved (we wouldn't be 1149.x or 1687.x but most likely get a new number altogether). Given that we see STAM as a part of SJTAG, it would likely be xxxx.1, in the same manner that 1149.1 was adopted for JTAG. May never be a "SJTAG standard" as such, just as there is no 1149, just a collection of related, xxxx.y standards.
    • Would help to see the revised text with the revision markups removed.
    • Are we going to allow for proprietary interfaces? Do we need to support them? We shouldn't specify what interfaces we are going to support if we want to be future proof. The concern though is what might be needed to support non-standard interfaces.
    • Consider the revised text over the next week (post it to the forums) then see if we want to make further adjustments, and then move on to Purpose. Propose not to vote on adopting any of the text until we have been through Purpose and Need - past experience has shown that revising other sections often prompts further amendments to previously agreed parts.
    • {Post Meeting Note} The revised text has been posted to the forum for review and comment: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1301#p1301.
  • Reference slides (not used during this meeting):
  • {Slide 14 - Draft Purpose}
  • Red text is highlighted as it is a constraint that we might want reconsider, or at least discuss.
  • {Slide 15 - Draft Need}
  • The wording of this has already been pointed out to be deficient as it stands. It is probably too long anyway - the latter part has been greyed as it is largely just an expansion of the main points.
  • {Slide 16 - Collated comments}
  • Yet to be considered.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 17}
  • None.

7. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • "Interface" is missing.
      • No obvious IEEE accepted definition.
      • 1687 has definitions for specialised forms: Device Interface and Instrument Interface.
      • We may need specialised forms for Software Interface and Hardware Interface.
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • SJTAG: Discussion on forums - http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=782

8. Topic for next meeting

9. Schedule next meeting

  • March 26.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • None.

12. List New Action Items

  • None.

13. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Peter.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh