Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2008-07-16

Meeting was called to order at 8:24am EDT

1. Roll Call (Participants):

Brad Van Treuren
Carl Nielsen
Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker

Excused absenses:
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve minutes

7/7/2008 minutes approved (Carl N. moved, Ian second)

3. Review old action items:

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Register on new SJTAG web site (http://www.sjtag.org) (All)
  • Look at proposed scope and purpose from ITC 2006 presentation and propose scope and purpose for ATCA activity group (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • Ian prepare and send out a sample newsletter to the people on this call; (Done)
  • [Brad] What kind of level of effort is this for a monthly effort.
  • [Ian] Not too much. Have markers in the template to get links from the RSS news feeds.
  • [Ian] I feel the newsletter is useful for outliers to keep the people interested in the activity.
  • [Carl N.] Who all is on the mailing list.
  • [Ian] Anyone who has signed up for the survey has been added to the mailing list. There is also a sign-up for it on the web site.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Results and Status from SJTAG Survey Activity
    • [Ian] Functions pie chart shows we are getting responses across the spectrum across the whole technology scope we have been talking about.
      The sectors we are talking about is getting a pretty good representation. Telecom is the majority of responders. Surprised people are not pushing the OEM integration. There are 5 topics sticking out above the others. Common test language seems to be the highest which probably shows what people’s objectives are. In another survey we probably should be targeting people’s roles more. Of the 93 invitations we have received 38 responses.
    • [Carl N.] Were there any “other” comments filled out?
    • [Ian] Link, adaption and consultation to/with IJTAG standard device and system instrumentation requirements etc.
    • [Carl N.] How about for the roles?
    • [Ian] Read through list of roles: Hardware Design and Development, Software Design and Development, Production, Test Development, Repair and Overhaul, Quality Assurance, Field Service, Sales and Marketing. Regarding the "other" category, one person claimed hardware and software development. The "other" roles were: DfT Trainer and Consultant, Senior Researcher, Education, Application Support and Test Development, DFT support and test development, and Technologist/Research.
    • [Carl N.] Common hardware objective did not seem to be a really hot topic. This surprises me. This questions how Carl W. and I fill out the hardware documentation section of the white paper. This was quite interesting.
    • [Ian] Along with that, there was a lot of comments about the hardware reuse aspect of the standard. We cannot predict what every system needs to do. What we can provide is guidelines on how you deal with best practices for items such as gateways and others that lets you leverage the technologies best.
    • [Carl W.] I noticed as I started working on the white paper, I came to the same conclusion. There are many items that turn into best practices because we cannot just pick one as the standard. There are advantages for each of them and they all have their merits.
    • [Ian] I'm going to have one reminder mail shot at those who haven't responded, but won't follow up beyond that.
    • [Ian] Our goal was to get a handle on what people felt was important and we have the top 5 items identified.
    • [Brad] I think we have achieved our objective. We have been dealing with everything but the language issue, but we have identified this as an important need. I propose I share from my BTW paper regarding language domains within the SJTAG problem space for next meeting.
    • [Ian] I think we have to understand whether we need a language for the application or a language set for transfer of test information between tools and other aspects.
  2. Status of white paper sections
    • [Ian] Added a little bit on the relationship to other standards
    • [Ian] Heiko spent a good bit of time last week updating the use case
    • [Brad] Heiko reported he spent most of his time adding the notes to the text and is replacing the notes with a narrative section by section.
    • [Carl W.] I was just working on the topology section and put in a paragraph or two into each section. It really does need some pictures which is why I came up with my question. I will borrow some pictures from the original document. I want to get some momentum going.
    • [Carl N.] Reviewed some of our prior SJTAG documentation and added more regarding what was in those documents as our prior message put in our current documents. I still am trying to understand what the term Test Manager is and if we still use that term.
    • [Ian] I felt external and embedded is too much of a simplification in describing the architecture.
    • [Brad] Not time this week with the need to complete and submit 2 ITC papers and one ITC poster session for SJTAG. I should have more time this week.
  3. Review of updates to use case white paper (Heiko will read messages later since he will not be available for the meeting)
    • [Brad] I liked what Heiko wrote for the Structural Test. The key points I liked was his discussion on the synchronization issues with 1149.6 regarding the test across multiple chains (e.g., multidrop issues or multiple chain synchronization issues)
    • [Ian] It follows in the same line with my Rotterdam presentation. This follows into what we have as best practices that cannot be really placed as standard practices.
    • [Brad] I like that there is not too much information and yet the information presented for structural test is detailed enough and causes the reader to think about the issues involved with this type of testing and coverage aspects. I would suggest that in some of the other sections on this topic the point about coverage and coverage loss when moving into the embedded environment with some types of architectures occurs.

5. Schedule next meetings:

Monday, July 28th, 2008, 8:15am EDT
Monday, August 4th, 2008, 8:15am EDT
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 8:15am EDT
Wednesday, August 20th, 2008, 8:15am EDT

6. Any other business


7. Review new action items

  • Prepare language presentation for next meeting (Brad)
  • Brad complete missing forum use cases.

8. Adjourned at 9:04am EDT

(moved by Ian, second by Carl N.)

Respectfully submitted,