Minutes of SJTAG Fringe Meeting at ITC'10, 2010-11-04

Meeting called to order: 10:05 AM CDT

1. Roll Call

Brian Erickson
Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Heiko Ehrenberg
Ken Parker (left 10:30)
Michele Portolan (joined 11:00)

Adam Ley

2. Discussion

Ian opened the meeting, expressing some disappointment at the low attendance, as indications from the poster session and other conversations had suggested that a number of other non-members expected to attend. It was however noted that the meeting timing straddled one of the invited addresses.

Ian gave a brief summary of the status of the SJTAG Initiative, noting that it was still in a pre-PAR state, Then went on to describe some of the issues that the group had encountered in trying to scope the SJTAG activity and some of methods that had been tried to get a grasp on the problem domain. Ken commented that it sounded like SJTAG were in a similar position to the one that P1687 had been in and had only recently started to move on from, remarking that SJTAG "maybe needed a 900lb gorilla" to give it some push; an industrial concern that had enough commitment to an SJTAG standard to ensure that it happened. Cisco was P1687's 900lb gorilla, and Alcatel-Lucent at one time looked to be SJTAG's gorilla, but times have changed. Ian commented that Selex has belief in SJTAG but lacks the industrial leverage to bring any significant influence to bear, while at one time Motorola looked to have a strong interest for automotive products, but apparently felt that SJTAG was moving too slowly.

There was brief discussion over whether interested parties might be holding off from participating in SJTAG until a PAR is approved. There is a significant number of people who seem to be content simply to observe for now.

The concept of a core SJTAG standard with a number of extensions was discussed as a means to manage the scope of the SJTAG problem. There was general agreement that a large, complex standard should be avoided if possible. Ken suggested that trying to draw a box round that core and preparing a roadmap for the extensions might help to draw people in. Carl agreed that we probably "needed to pick our fight".

Ian described the idea of "SJTAG Compliant" and "SJTAG Compatible" assemblies, partly as a means to allow legacy designs to be accepted into an SJTAG system. There was some debate as to whether this was a useful delineation, with the predominant opinion being that it was simpler to only consider "compliant" or "non-compliant".

If a core could be defined, even if it meant narrowing the scope more than we might currently be imagining, then it would allow us to move into a PAR, possibly excite further interest, and provide a basis for extension standards. Ian asked if setting the scope for a first cut to address only what could be achieved strictly under 1149.1 might be an option. It was thought that this might be workable. A further enquiry relating to limiting the initial scope to only consider a multidrop backplane bus was felt by both Brian and Carl to be too restrictive.

Michele commented that it was often difficult to find information about developing standards, and cited how little public information had seemed to exist for 1149.7. Ian agreed and commented that he had mentioned the lack of visibility of the developing standards to both Bill Eklow and Rohit Kapur and Bill had indicated that he intended to repeat the Standards Posters at next year's ITC and to ensure that Rohit had his own table.

Brian asked about a target date for preparing a first draft of a PAR for consideration, commenting that he usually found Q4 to be a lot quieter and that working towards a deadline may provide some focus and impetus for the group. It was felt that the year end was too ambitious a target for a PAR submission but might be a practical objective for an initial draft. Heiko remarked that a draft PAR had previously been written up, although Ian noted that it was probably no longer particularly relevant.

Brian also suggested that getting some university interest might help to heighten awareness. Academic insights may also bring some fresh perspectives to the group. Ian stated that he felt he knew of one contact within Heriot Watt University who used to teach BScan techniques and may be interested, and Brian also felt he may have a prospective contact.

3. Review new action items

There were no specific action items from this meeting, although several points discussed will need to be carried forward to the next weekly meeting.

4. Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 11:55 AM CDT.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh