Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-12-16

Meeting called to order: 11:10 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:12)
Michele Portolan (joined 11:23)

Patrick Au
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren

2. Review and approve previous minutes:


  • Draft circulated 11/18/2013.
  • Eric had previously noted two corrections, both near the end of 5a:
    • Now we are beginning to see BScan as an interface to other functions and features.
    • Ian thought that most of the other comments made by Adam were statements that required no further explanation.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.


  • Draft circulated 11/25/2013.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.


  • Draft circulated 12/02/2013.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.


  • Updated draft circulated 12/13/2013.
  • No further corrections advised.
  • 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)
  • Harrison will attempt to come up with a table of use cases and their associated layer and what can be done at that layer. Ongoing.
  • Ian/All: Look for real world examples of boards that we could take through from board test to a system test implementation as a worked example case. Ongoing.
  • Ian - Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.

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

5. Discussion Topics

a. Proposal to vote on outstanding minutes by email.

  • Since we now had four sets of draft minutes unapproved, Ian proposed to move all of these to email voting.  Ian would provide reminders of who attended each meeting.  There were no objections. {ACTION: Ian to send out request for approval votes via email}

b. Moving forward:
      - How has Scope and Purpose changed? See http://www.sjtag.org/ home page.
      - Can we outline a hierarchy/structure of SJTAG standards? See Heiko's additional
        notes from BTW in the previous minutes and Brad's email.

  • Following on from the last meeting and noting Brad's email point about the difference between static topology and the dynamic characteristics of some test, Ian was keen to find out if there was a natural structure that could be applied to PAR or set of PARs.
  • Heiko suggested that starting point was the system structure and perhaps the definition of a system.  That could set out the static aspects for a structural test and the dynamic elements for other uses.  These could be in different sub-standards, while the "Dot0" gave the system overview.  There could be a template for a system or for parts of a system.
  • Ian noted that while we seemed to moving away from an 1149.1-centric view, he had a mental image that we were still dealing with scan chains.  Eric asked if those were internal or external, for structural tests, for diagnostics?  Ian felt that he was probably thinking in terms of BSRs in the device.  Ian had a view that a system objective was probably to minimise the number of pins that needed to be presented and minimise the amount of functioning hardware needed in order to get some level of "result" from the system under test.  While you could achieve the former using, say, a mission Ethernet, it probably presumed more functional hardware existed than 1149.1 would.
  • Eric felt it would be difficult to dispense with 1149.1 altogether and noted that re-use of vectors had been identified as an important aim.
  • It was felt that we might need some diagrams, similar to the example used with the Templates to illustrate a system, or parts of it, and then draw from that absolute sets of requirements: These may differ for, say, an 1149.1 controlled test or an I2C controlled test.
  • Heiko wondered if it might advantageous to consider it from the designer's perspective and what they might want.  Ian thought that perspective, or that of the test development engineer, might be quite useful.  This could consider test access and test management as a "section" and perhaps common formats for test data and test diagnostics as another "section".
  • {Discussion digressed briefly into the frequent lack of early engagement of test engineers into the product development activity.}  
  • Ian thought that after the New Year, we should return to our more usual discussion topics, but wanted to keep this subject moving alongside that.  Eric felt this may be a key activity for us.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

7. Schedule next meeting

  • Next Meeting: January 6.
  • January schedule:
    6, 13, 20, 27

8. Any other business

  • Eric expects to have something to share on his presentation for the National Microelectronics Institute for our second meeting in January.

9. Review new action items

  • Ian: Send out request for email approvals for outstanding meeting minutes.

10. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 11:52 AM EST, seconded by Brian.

Respectfully submitted, Ian McIntosh