Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-09-28

Meeting called to order: 11:11 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brad Van Treuren
Brian Erickson
Peter Horwood
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:16)

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Eric Cormack
Carl Walker
Bill Eklow

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of August 17 minutes (updated draft circulated 08/20/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.
  • Approval of September 21 minutes (updated draft circulated on 09/24/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Brad moved to approve, seconded by Peter. No objections or abstentions.

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.

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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Enumerate our requirements
- What are we trying to implement?

  • Brad had started preparing a list of requirements as a table in Excel, but noted that Al Crouch was doing a similar exercise for 1687.1 which perhaps went a bit further.
  • {Brad shared both worksheets for comparison}
  • On the SJTAG sheet, Brad had picked out things that people seemed to be looking for, from the comments in the recent forum posts on the PAR Scope and Purpose. On the 1687.1 sheet, Al had introduced Category and Zone columns, where the Zone related to a diagram. Ian was interested in this notion and wondered if SJTAG had a suitable diagram that could be used in a similar manner. Brad looked at the "E-MBIST Data Transfer Ecosystem" and "SJTAG Visualization" diagrams (used on the ITC 2014 and 2015 posters) but noted that SJTAG did not have the same hardware-based definition. AccessLink and DataLink could be our "zones". Ian thought this must also be some management or oversight zone that determined what went through the Links as that had to be part of what people preparing tooling would need work with. Brad agreed, noting that it was also concerned with the aspects of coordination.
  • From the Ecosystem diagram, Ian concluded that we were not concerned with the boxed elements on the right, since SJTAG aims to be device agnostic. Brad noted that we were interested in things like the JTAG and I2C interfaces.
  • For the SJTAG Visualization diagram, Brad remarked that he was considering the Modules to be models and not necessarily "drivers".
  • Ian noted that the 1687.1 sheet also included a column for Tentative Plan, a proposed action to take on that line item. Brad added columns for Zone, Category and Tentative Plan to the SJTAG sheet.  Ian questioned how Category differed from Zone: It appears to be a more fine-grained breakdown of Zone.
  • Some discussion took place over whether the text in the Requirements column should really be in the Description column. It was largely free text and not a formal requirement statement, so Brad moved the text.
  • The items so far are all "Capabilities", collected from the recent forum posts. On inspection of the forums, there did not appear to be many other threads that could supply additional requirements. Ian felt most of it would be contained in the meeting minutes, and perhaps the relevant data would only be in the meetings held this year. Brad felt that maybe two years would be better and recalled an earlier exercise to extract Key Takeaways from the minutes. Ian noted that probably predated the change of website software, but thought it should still be possible to pull out the data {ACTION: Ian to recover Key Takeaways from last two years of meeting minutes}
  • Brad wondered if there were any other sources. There are some forum discussion threads associated with the White Paper volumes. Brad noted that the Volumes were not written to help discovery of requirements. Ian agreed that they were meant to present a position of where we are and where we are going.
  • Brad will post the Excel file on the File Manager. Ian wondered if there was a way to make it easier to collaborate on the contents. Heiko suggested making it a Google document. Ian had considered that but was worried that we would lose a bit of control over it. Brad suggested that people could download the file from the File Manager, make additions and add their initials to the end of the filename then email it to him and he'd consolidate the inputs. 
  • The Excel file is available here: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SJTAG%20Requirement%20List%2020160928.xlsx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Enumerate our requirements - continued
    • What are we trying to implement?
    • Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • Concept of "Zones" (zones of applicability for requirements) introduced.

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.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting October 5. Heiko will be absent.
  • October schedule:
    • 12, 19, 26.

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

  • Ian: Extract Key Takeaway information for last two years.

12. Adjourn

  • Brian moved to adjourn, seconded by Peter.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh