Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-07-24

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions Ltd.)
Heiko Ehrenberg (Goepel Electronics)

By Proxy:


2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of July 17 minutes (updated draft circulated on 07/19/2017)
    • Corrections: Ciswco -> Cisco, Bard -> Brad, both in the Roll Call list.
    • Brian moved to approve, second by Carl, 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.
  • Heiko to draft a call far participation text for review by the group. COMPLETE
  • Ian to consider a way to delineate the Study Group work from everything that went before on the SJTAG website. COMPLETE

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
  • Possible invitation for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Study Group name and participation invite

  • Email exchanges had taken place throughout the week which Ian had transferred to a forum thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=766). Some additional comments had been posted directly to the thread {shared}.
  • Brad suggested dealing with the invitation text first.
  • Invitation text for a call for participation in the Study Group:
    • Heiko had drafted and circulated the original text and subsequently updated it based on comments from the group and guidance supplied by Adam Cron on what he expected the invitation to cover. Ian had later made further adjustments to reflect later comments.
    • The group expressed general agreement with the wording, pending resolution of the group's title to be included in the text.

  • Name of the Study Group:
    • Of the four titles proposed last week, only two had gained any obvious support but there was no clear preference and some question about whether either really represented our purpose. The two lewading candidates were "System Test Access" and "System Test Access Management".
    • Brad made a motion to adopt "System Test Access Management", seconded by Heiko.
      • Eric had expressed support for "System Test Access".
      • Carl observed that any good acronyms were probably already overused.
      • Brad argued against "System Test Access" as we were not designing the access link. Carl concurred, noting that it formed the idea of "hardware".
      • Ian was averse to long titles in email subject lines - "SJTAG" was convenient in that respect.
      • Brad felt we were preserving the philosophy of JTAG (i.e. the Joint Test Action Group).
      • Ian read out Adam Cron's remarks on a title, which noted that he wanted an "English" title but that we could still use "SJTAG" elsewhere. Ian was keen to hang onto the SJTAG label for a number of reasons, including maintaining the link with the past work.
      • Brad referred to the Wikipedia reference on JTAG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTAG) and observed that by adding the "System" preface we remained aligned to the JTAG philosophy while extending it to the system-level.
      • The four titles (in the first post of the forum thread) were reviewed.  The use of the words "Engineering" and "Maintenance" in the latter two was not popular. Ian felt "Maintenance " pointed too much towards 1149.5 while Brad felt it implied a desire to manage the context when we did not really care what the user was doing with the links.
    • A vote was held on Brad's motion: Eric, Carl and Brian all approved (no dissent).
    • A proposal to vote on adopting an acronym was rejected, the preference being to allow one to emerge naturally over time, if the study wanted it.
  • With the group title settled, Brad moved to approve the invite text discussed earlier. Ian was happy to take the motion but cautioned that he'd like to get Adam Cron's approval of the text before publishing it, so we may need to make further edits. With that noted, Heiko seconded the motion which passed with no dissent.
  • Ian will send the text on to Adam Cron for approval {ACTION}.
  • Brad made a note of thanks to Heiko for interfacing with TTSC on behalf of the group.

b. ITC Poster?
c. ITC Fringe Meeting?

  • Both topics were taken together.
  • Ian commented that the main problem was having people on site at ITC to support such activities. Brad asked who would be attending - Heiko said that he would be while Carl hoped to attend.
  • Ian noted that a poster only needs on person to man it, but a fringe meeting either needs good attendance either from the group or through stirring up interest at ITC to make it worthwhile.
  • Heiko recalled that Bill seemed to suggest trying to get the fringe meeting right after the poster session. If that wasn't possible then it'd be more difficult to get participants, although a meeting could be promoted at the poster.
  • Ian recalled that some poster sessions had been at the end of the day, others over the lunch break. Both had problems either by extending people's day or through competing with the main presentations. Heiko expected the poster session to be over lunch again this year, but noted that last year the posters needed to be taken down right after the session, so there was no opportunity for people to browse them over the week. Ian remarked that on the two occasions he attended, he was able to leave leaflets by the poster, a number of which were picked up outside the poster session.
  • Heiko will ask Bill if the posters will be up all day (or all week) {ACTION}.
  • Ian suggested that in some cases, people may be put off approaching a poster as they may want to read it but not be "accosted" by the person manning it, so having time to browse outside the poster session could be helpful.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Review P1838 P&P as a template for our own - Ian will circulate {ACTION}.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

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.
    • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • July 31.
  • August 7, 14, 21, 28.

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: Submit invite text to Adam Cron for approval.
  • Heiko: Contact Bill regarding planning for ITC poster session.
  • Ian: Circulate P1838 P&P to group.

12. Adjourn

  • Brad moved to adjourn, seconded by Eric.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:04 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh