Minutes of Study Group Meeting, 2018-06-18

Meeting called to order: 11:04 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_39.pdf

Brad moved to accept the agenda as proposed, seconded by Jon.

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Bill Eklow (Retired)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (ARM) (joined 11:05)
Adam W. Ley (ASSET Intertech)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Craig Stephan (INTELLITECH Inc.) (joined 11:05)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)
Sivakumar Vijayakumar (Keysight) (joined 11:10)

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Mukund Modi (NAVAIR Lakehurst)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed, no comments.

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • June 4 (updated draft circulated June 7)
    • No further corrections noted.
    • Brian moved to approve, Brad seconded.
    • No objections or abstentions → minutes 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 updates.
    • ONGOING.
  • [27.2] Legacy Initiative Group to propose definition for "SJTAG".
    • No updates.
    • ONGOING
  • These may need to be carried over to a future Working Group.

5. Discussion Topics

a) Voting Results.

  • {Slide 12}
  • Brad opened new slides and captured comments from the meeting.
  • 12 eligible voters, excluding chair.
    • Motion 1 (Scope): 12 votes "For", no votes "Against", no abstentions. Motion carried.
    • Motion 2 (Purpose): 11 votes "For", no votes "Against", 1 abstention. Motion carried.
    • Motion 3 (Need): 12 votes "For", no votes "Against", no abstentions. Motion carried.

b) "Stakeholders" for the standard.

  • The format is not particularly crucial.  Previous PARs have presented this information in different ways {some examples shared}.
  • Noted that RevCom are likely to use this list to try to have the stakeholders represented within the ballot group for the standard.
  • Draft text prepared. May still need some work but as time is limited this should dealt with in "slow time" between now and the next meeting, preferably via the forums. {Post-meeting note: Now posted here: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1369#p1369}.

c) Proposed amendments.

  • The annotated document provided by Adam (http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/2018_06_11_PAR_texts_annotated.docx) was the basis for discussion.
  • Scope dives deeply into things that require reading further on to start to comprehend. Possibly the Title will help a little towards that, but the context isn't really apparent at the outset. What does it mean to conform? What kinds of interfaces? Behaviour of what?
  • Clarifications:
    • Purpose is not mandatory on the PAR.
    • NesCom (New Standards Committee) - evaluates if the proposed standard can be done in time, approves the PAR.
    • RevCom (Review Committee) - checks that the scope has not been exceeded, and that the scope has been fulfilled, at least in part. 
  • Can infer from title (IEEE Standard for System Test Access Management) that "interfaces" must relate to test access, but "transformations" are from what to what? There is very little elaboration on this even in the rest of the text. There is a need to put some bounds on the scope here, and it may be that the mention of transformations is an unnecessary burden: Perhaps just refer to interfaces and allow transformations to be developed in the course of things. May need algorithms to move from one interface to another. Difficulty in trading off defining what needs to be done for the PAR versus what is business of a future Working Group. Difficult to see how describe the transformations between interfaces more explicitly.
  • Rather than small adjustments, the Scope needs to be significantly changed around, else it's better to just leave it as is. Modifying should help get the PAR past TTSC and NesCom so seems to be worth doing.
  • Two main concerns:
    • For the reader, the Scope should provide enough detail quickly to let him/her know that this is within their sphere of interest.
    • The Scope needs to have fairly strong bounds. 
  • If the PAR is rejected by NesCom, what would our options be? Would probably get a chance to revise and re-submit. TTSC should also be screening and would presumably reject a PAR if they didn't think it pass NesCom scrutiny. The issue is that we are running out of time.  TTSC meets quarterly - next meeting is July 18 and the Agenda needs to be set by July 4, so we realistically have only the next two meeting dates available to us.  We could re-submit, if necessary, to a later TTSC meeting but the Study Group status would have expired and there may be more scrutiny of submissions in such a case.
  • Modified slides created by Brad are available here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_39_bgvt.pdf.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 13}
  • Urgent need to refine Scope
    • Could leverage some text from Purpose.

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
    • Device - do we mean a packaged device? May be many devices in a package (1149.1 opted for "entity" in order to be non-specific).
      • Correction to the above remark: It has been pointed out that 1149.1 actually defines conformance in terms of "component" (c.f. COMPONENT_CONFORMANCE attribute in BSDL), and "entity" only pertains to BSDL where it is simply inherited from VHDL. "Device" is often used as a modifier, e.g. "device package", "device identification".
    • ATPG has been added.

8. Topic for next meeting

  • Follow up on Stakeholders.
  • Follow up on Scope.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • June 25.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • ITC is now taking in submissions for posters - need to consider if we feel able to offer anything.

12. List New Action Items

  • None.

13. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:11 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh