Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-07-03

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Carl Walker
Peter Horwood
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of June 26 minutes (draft circulated on 06/26/2017)
    • 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: Consider/propose how the existing Scope Purpose and Need might be condensed into a concise "Problem Statement" for TTSC. COMPLETE.

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
  • Possible invitation for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.

5. Discussion Topics

a. TTSC meeting preparation.

  • Ian briefly summarised the action responses (included in an email circulated on 07/02, plus an additional comment received from Peter.
  • Ian wanted to settle on the information to be provided to Adam Cron/TTSC.
  • i. A list of potential WG members and their affiliations.
    • Ian had restructured the Members page (http://www.sjtag.org/members {shared}) and now felt it was reasonable to say that the Study Group membership would be the Officers and Core listed there plus Adam and Michele, who had both signalled their intent to participate. Others on the Observers might also take part. Ian anticipated that we'd expressly list the expected members anyway, rather than just pointing to the website, although a pointer could help to show the other interested parties.
    • Heiko asked how many were on the mailing list. Ian thought there was around 40-47 but would need to check. Heiko suggested that there could be others on that list who might take part and was keen to show that there was more interest in the subject than just the ten or so in our "regular" group.
    • It was also suggested that the TTSC might be able to help "advertise" the group. Ian noted that IEEE-SA had a system for sending out calls for participation once a PAR is approved, but that may not be available for Study Groups, However, TTSC has it's own mailing list, and Heiko suggested that some of the existing chairs may mention it through their own groups.
    • Ian asked Heiko if the expectation was that we provide information directly to Adam in advance of the meeting or if Heiko would present it during the call. Heiko responded that Steve Sunter, who is seeking a Study Group on Mixed Signals, prepared a 3-page document and presented a few slides at the meeting, so we should probably do something similar. Heiko offered to put something together later in the week for the group to consider - perhaps 3 or 4 slides presenting our Scope, Purpose and Need and a diagram on what we consider "a system" {ACTION}. Ian noted that our example board diagram might serve for this but that we also had diagrams that we used on more recent posters. 
  • ii. A URL where Study Group minutes will go.
    • Ian believed we would continue to use our own Minutes pages on the website (http://www.sjtag.org/minutes) and if necessary could place a pointer to those from an IEEE Grouper site. Heiko understood that the intent was simply to show that there was repository where minutes would be held.
  • iii. A list of potential Study Group officers.
    • Heiko noted that Steve Sunter simply listed those who had previously held a position in the group but without defining who might take which role. Heiko also thought that the Study Group may be expected to elect or appoint its officers after the group is formed. Ian agreed that was likely and was how a Working Group would operate.
    • Eric asked if Heiko knew what the restrictions were on officers with regard to IEEE membership, noting that in P1838, all officers were IEEE members. Heiko agreed that officers needed to be IEEE members and probably SA members but there was no such requirement for ordinary group members. Ian seemed to recall that there was a SA requirement at least for Chair and Vice-Chair of a Working Group, but maybe not for other offices, such as secretary or editor.  There was also the question of whether the same requirements would apply to a Study Group. Heiko offered to check the SA byelaws or to ask at the TTSC meeting.
  • iv. A draft proposal of the problem being addressed.
    • Ian again ran through the emailed responses.
    • Eric wondered if we should drop the mention of "JTAG". Ian thought that was probably right, or at least to explain that we intended to include other access links/data links.  The JTAG mention probably came about from Al Crouch observing that our Home page (http://www.sjtag.org/ {shared}) had previously only referred to 1149.1, but has since been updated to use the wording from our provisional Scope, Purpose and Need. We would likely still be heavily reliant on 1149.1, and it's probably from the JTAG tool vendors that we'd hope to get our tools, but we need to be able to use those other links, such as Al mentioned. Eric noted that P1838 were similarly leaning on the legacy of 1149.1.  
    • Ian opened a blank text file for editing {shared} and started copying comments from the emails, the took a few minutes to compose the following from the key points:
      • "Problem:
        There is a long standing failure of existing test standards to address the exchange of test related data and testability functions of components/assemblies used within a system or to manage the interoperability of those testability functions at the system level and between those components and assemblies.
        While the primary interface is anticipated to use 1149.1 and derivative technologies, it is important to also encompass other commonly used access links/data links such as I2C, SPI etc."
    • The group agreed with this as a concise statement of the problem, although Ian anticipated that there may be revisions once those not on the call had a chance to review the minutes. 
    • Heiko asked if this was intended to replace our Need statement or was in addition. Ian replied that this was in addition and we could point to the Need statement as an expansion or backup of the Problem Statement.
  • Post Meeting Note: There are 30 mailing list subscribers that are in addition to those people listed on the Members page..

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Building Blocks - Use Case of a simple Interconnect Test - continuation.
    • Translating AccessLink specification.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • 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'
    • Need a refined definition of "system" for the purposes of the PAR.
    • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting July 10.
  • July schedule:
    • 17, 24.

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

  • Heiko: Draft data pack for TTSC and circulate to group.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved, Brian seconded.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:57 AM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh