Minutes of Study Group Meeting, 2018-04-16

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_31.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Bill Eklow (Retired)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (ARM) (left at 11:12)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Sivakumar Vijayakumar (Keysight)

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Mukund Modi (NAVAIR Lakehurst)
Russell Shannon (NAVAIR Lakehurst)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • April 9
    • Draft circulated 04/09/18
    • No corrections.
    • Joel moved to approve, seconded by Brad, 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".
    • No further progress to report.
    • ONGOING.
  • [27.2] Legacy Initiative Group to propose definition for "SJTAG".

5. Discussion Topics

a) PAR - Refine PAR Purpose text.

  • {Slide12 - headings}
  • Probably only have six more meetings before our extension expires, so it is imperative that we conclude the group's business within that time.
  • {Slide 13 - Draft Purpose}
  • This was the version marked up during the previous meeting.
  • Brad created a new editable copy of the slide to collect today's comments {shared, http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_31_bgvt_single_slide.pdf (post-meeting note: this actually contains four slides)}.
  • Remarks noted during the discussion:
    • {Brad, slide 1 - copy of Slide 13 from main pack}
    • {Brad, slide 2 - incorporation of edits}
    • Previous suggestion was that registers were in the domain of the leveraged standards so we are really interacting with "interfaces". But is this implied by "access topologies"? Access topology might refer to the way the interfaces are connected rather than the interfaces themselves. It is still true that what we're trying to do is route data to registers. Perhaps adding "interfaces" into the first sentence helps, but it throws off the second sentence as the model is now of more than just topology.
    • Are we really "modelling"? In a sense - We need to be able to construct an interpretation of the behaviour so that we know how to get data to the destinations.
    • What was the purpose behind including "yet interchangeable interfaces"? This was to convey that we were abstracting the interface such that we didn't really care what the interface was. This is in effect the "uniformity" mentioned in fifth bulleted comment, and "uniform" seems to be more readily comprehended than "interchangeable". 
    • {Brad, slide 3 - removal of strike-outs to aid reading}
    • The notion of "uniform description" was already in the first sentence, so isn't needed in the second sentence. What is missing from the first sentence that requires the second? Probably the main thing is the notion of a "correct time order".
    • {Siva dropped audio for a few minutes around this point}
    • The other point that needs to be made, if we retain the reference to registers is that STAM is not impinging upon the leveraged standards - there is a recognition of a hand-off to them. Upon checking against the Scope, it was clear that this was already well covered there.
    • After re-wording, the second sentence of the Purpose seemed weak. Re-worded again to be more direct/positive, but suggesting that the standard will provide "tools" might be misleading - we don't mean tools such as a software tool vendor might supply. "Mechanisms" also suggested but "a methodology" was accepted.
    • Checked that all the bulleted comments were addressed. The only thing that wasn't was the assumption of the digital domain. This could simply be added into the Scope {Brad, slide 4}
    • Scope and Purpose reviewed together and both seem to consistent and generally agreeable.
  • The amended versions of the Purpose and Scope slide will be posted to the forums for comment {post-meeting note - now posted here: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1323#p1323}.
  • Reference slides (not used during this meeting):
  • {Slide 14 - 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 15 - Collated comments}
  • Yet to be considered.
  • {Slide 16 - Draft Scope}
  • No need to agree on text right now, wait until we've considered the other sections.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 17}
  • Group is content with Scope and Purpose as these currently stand.

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

  • April 23.
    • Ian expects to be out on 23rd, Russell expects to be out on May 7th.
    • Ian will try to make sure that Heiko and Brad have material for next week's meeting in advance.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • None.

12. List New Action Items

  • None.

13. Adjourn

  • Terry moved to adjourn, seconded by Carl.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:59 AM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh