Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2015-11-23

Meeting called to order: 11:08 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Michele Portolan
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood
Tim Pender (joined 11:13)

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • 11/16/2015 minutes (updated draft circulated 11/19/2015).
    • Tim erroneously recorded as 'excused' in Roll Call, Brad should be noted as an expected absence for 11/23 in Schedule Next Meeting.
    • Brian moved to approve as amended, seconded by Eric, 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.
  • Although not a formal action, Ian noted that he had not had time to look at refining Glossary definitions.

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. Brad probably has one topic left on his list.
  • Try to get Al Crouch on call re 1687.1

5. Discussion Topics

  • Brian asked to make a suggestion prior to the scheduled business.
  • Brian: Having been on these calls for around five years, we seem to often end up in extended discussions. Maybe we should think about setting a "gold date" for issuing a PAR. This is maybe something to talk about next week when Brad's back.
  • Ian: Well, it's similar to thoughts I've been having.  As Bill had suggested when he joined the team, I've been wondering if we could start out with a relatively simple hardware standard - what you need to provide to make SJTAG usable, e.g. what features you need to provide when you have multiple boards in a system, what features you need when you have multiple chains on a board, perhaps.
  • Brian: I was thinking of even something like a board level BSDL, so you can bring in a third party board and test it is connected at the board edge and communicating.
  • Ian: Just for a go/nogo test? Yes.
  • Brian: It seems that we sometimes stick our heads up and seem to be making progress then we get down in amongst the weeds again for six months.  They're important things and do need to be talked about, but meanwhile we're not seen to be doing anything.
  • Ian: I think we get caught up with the software issues, which are hard and will take time.  That possibly needs a specialist sub-group but we don't have the people to staff it.  That might change if we had a PAR.
  • Brian: Build a PAR and they will come!
  • Michele: I agree.  ITC showed that there is interest, but people say "you have been around this long but there is nothing to show". With 1687 and I2C access, we're starting to see people taking more interest in system type things.
  • Ian: I think I need to take some of the blame for that: We've set ourselves the task of moving to a PAR definition a couple of times and ended up going down rabbit-warrens of detail - as chair, I should maybe have been pulling us back from that.
  • Eric: I think Adam had the same idea as Brian, didn't he?
  • Ian: Adam has certainly commented that we were drifting away from the PAR definition aim.
  • Eric: It seems that we start off OK but often come across a topic then try to resolve too deep an issue.
  • Ian: 1687 went into PAR relatively early.  That had it's problems but it did get people involved.
  • Eric: I'm sure the interest is there.
  • Eric: I think Brian's idea of a date is a good one, but the question is going to be how long do we give ourselves?
  • Eric: With Bill's help, we did start to put down a PAR. We could go into that in a bit more detail.
  • Michele: We could also re-ask for endorsement as an IEEE Study Group - that may get us some people.
  • Heiko: That may need to wait until the next TTSC meeting to be approved, which will be some time next year.
  • Ian: That may not be too bad.  Does a study group even need to be approved by the whole TTSC?
  • Heiko: From the way the last meeting was conducted, I think so.  I suppose they could do it by telephone or online if they wanted.
  • Eric: It's be good to get Adam involved somehow.
  • Ian: I think we'd need to re-schedule for that.  Previously we avoided the 1687 slot on a Wednesday. That may be an option, but maybe not for everybody.
  • Brian: There's a limitation on the time isn't there? This is as early as I can manage and it's about as late as you can manage, Ian, so it's really only the day we can adjust.
  • Ian: OK, I think we need to have a couple actions on all of us for next week:
    • Be ready with availability on other days, possibly nearby times [ACTION].
    • Bring ideas for small, easily managed PAR scopes [ACTION].
  • Brian: Perhaps we look at our own problems we see and pick some low-hanging fruit that can get help from SJTAG.
  • Brian: I like Michele's idea of reapplying for study group status.
  • Ian: OK, with Brad's absence, I think we struggle to make progress on the other topics scheduled for today.  Shall we carry them forward to the next or a later meeting and close early? 
  • Group agrees.

a. What are the alternatives to PDL and ICL that could carry preclusion descriptions?

  • Deferred until Brad can be on the call.

b. How does an instrument know its own instance?

  • Deferred until Brad can be on the call.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Proposal for deadline for entry into PAR.
  • Schedule for future meetings.
  • What are the alternatives to PDL and ICL that could carry preclusion descriptions?
  • How does an instrument know its own instance?

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  •  None.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • November 30.
  • December schedule:
    • 7, 14, 21.

10. Any other business

  • None.

11. Review new action items

  • All: Be ready with availability on other days, possibly nearby times.
  • All: Bring ideas for small, easily managed PAR scopes.
  • (Ian may try to distil concise glossary definitions from the previous discussions).

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn seconded by Brian. Meeting adjourned at 11:44 AM EST.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh