Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-04-11

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Richard Foster (left 11:42)
Adam Ley (left 11:54)
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:24)

Heiko Ehrenberg
Patrick Au
Peter Horwood
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

03/28/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 03/28/2011.
  • No amendments noted.
  • Insufficient attendees for approval.

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?
  • 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
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • All: Forward text file to Ian containing keywords from review of meeting minutes. - Ongoing.
  • Carl/Brad: Get annotated keyword worksheets to Ian by Wednesday Close of Business. - Ongoing

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Identification of key "Take Away Points"
    - Progress on review of past minutes
    - Review of down-selected keywords
    • [Ian] We're on the second half of may last block now. I had hoped I'd also have Carl's input, but he seems to have some new responsibilities which are reducing his availability further.
    • {Ian shared the keyword spreadsheet}
    • Backplane
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] I'm not seeing a whole lot that's useful here. It's maybe too general and not targeted enough.
    • [Brad] Result 21 is important in considering the backplane as an FRU but should be captured by the term 'FRU'. 24 should be covered by 'constraints'. 26 might be useful in that we have to add the domain of interconnects into our thought processes: Cables as well as backplanes.
    • [Ian] So although 'backplane' may be the more common term in interconnects it may be too narrow?
    • [Brad] The complication is that a backplane isn't a daughterboard. The relationship doesn't fall into the roles of parent and child easily. Some of the early NCR servers actually had fiber-optics on the front of the board and copper on the back. That was the beginnings of fiber-optic backplanes.
    • [Ian] So we're tending towards 'backplane' being useful.
    • {Keep}
    • BCD
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] I don't know why I even selected this one.
    • [Brad] I move to toss.
    • [Eric] This would have been in terms of onboard diagnostics which will be covered elsewhere.
    • {Toss}
    • Benefit
    • [Ian] I'm fairly sure this will be covered by 'return on investment'.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] There are some references that don't look useful, but those that are all seem to be ROI topics. So we should substitute 'return on investment' for 'benefit'.
    • [Brad] I'll make that motion.
    • {Replace with 'Return on investment'}
    • BMC
    • [Brad] It should be in the form 'Board Management Controller'. That's relevant.
    • [Ian] It is a term that applies across TCAs and into other areas?
    • [Brad] It's a general term used in industry.
    • {Keep in expanded form}
    • Boundary
    • [Ian] I recall we had a similar discussion on 'Edge'.
    • [Brad] Yes, that's right.
    • {Queried minutes of March 7}
    • [Ian] Last time we decided to keep 'edge', but now we have a similar term - board boundary, device boundary, system boundary.
    • [Brad] How about 'interface'?
    • [Ian] I don't know, that sounds a bit vague and encompasses other concepts.
    • [Brad] What about 'border' - that has the idea of a dividing line.
    • [Ian] I'd be comfortable with that.
    • [Brad] We really need to throw these into one category. Put the words into the same bin to consider.
    • [Ian] I can markup the spreadsheet so the options cross-refer to each other.
    • [Brad] That sounds good.
    • {Cross refer 'boundary' and 'edge'}
    • Boundary-scan
    • [Ian] This appears because of the hyphen. It's probably not much use: Boundary scan is what we do.
    • [Brad] It's the basis of everything we do.
    • [Ian] Toss?
    • [Brad] I'll move for that.
    • [Eric] Seconded.
    • {Toss}
    • Bridge
    • [Ian] I was expecting this to refer to Scanbridges.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] And that's what it looks like. Do we want to reference all the protocols, like ASP, and Shadow?
    • [Brad] On the basis that it could be added later I'd move to strike this. It should be covered by 'gateways' anyway.
    • {Toss}
    • BSCAN
    • [Ian] We've already tossed 'boundary scan' so this should go too.
    • [Eric] Yes.
    • {Toss}
    • BSDL
    • [Ian] Is there value in this?
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] I'm a little torn, because there's information on where BSDL is deficient, such as describing a circuit for SJTAG.
    • [Ian] Would 'BSDL deficiency' be narrowing things too much?
    • [Brad] Maybe. We can get into discussions of how you validate BSDLs.
    • {Richard left}
    • [Eric] BSDL extensions for SJTAG. I'd move to keep it.
    • {Keep as 'Boundary Scan Description Language'}
    • BSM
    • [Brad] We should can that one. The device doesn't even exist any more.
    • [Ian] Not even as a historical reference?
    • [Brad] I'll remember this - it'll be covered in discussions of Built-in Self Test.
    • {Toss}
    • Built-in-self-test
    • [Brad] That would be worthwhile.
    • [Ian] I probably marked 'BIST' to keep elsewhere. This is just a cross reference.
    • {Keep as 'built-in self test'}
    • bypasselement
    • [Eric] Why would we have that as one word?
    • [Ian] That would be that way it was labelled for the purposes of our building blocks diagrams.
    • [Eric] But you wouldn't have it without the space.
    • [Ian] Not normally.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] It appears as 'BypassElement' and is shown using formating for code, so it is a label.
    • [Eric] OK, I'm in favour of keeping it.
    • [Brad] If we can keep it with the uppercase 'B' and 'E'.
    • [Ian] That should be possible.
    • {Keep as 'BypassElement'}
    • canopen
    • [Ian] This came up during an ITC Fringe meeting where CANOpen was something that was suggested we could compare ourselves against.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] I'd say that this should appear as 'Open Controller Area Network'.
    • [Ian] Do we think it's worth keeping?
    • [Brad/Eric] I think so.
    • {Keep as 'Open Controller Area Network'}
    • centralized
    • [Ian] I was thinking centralized repository. This is similar to 'distributed' where we had distributed system and distributed repository as the preferred terms
    • [Brad] Can we see the context?
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] We have centralized control there.
    • [Ian] So it looks like 'centralized control' and 'centralized repository' are our terms.
    • [Brad] Yes, and that matches with what we did with 'distributed'.
    • {Keep as 'centralized control' and 'centralized repository'}
    • [Ian] I should chase Carl for his contribution. Or do we want to take a break from this?
    • [Brad] I feel people are maybe getting bored with this.
    • [Ian] Yes, it's taking a very long time. OK I'll see if I can get a different topic for next week.
    • [Brad] If I think of something I'll pass it along.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting


6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
April 18th (11:00 AM EDT, 4:00 PM BST)

Schedule for April 2011:

7. Any other business

Ian noted that IEEE std 1581-2011 was now approved.

8. Review new action items


9. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 12:13 PM EDT, seconded by Brad.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh