Minutes of P2654 Working Group Meeting No.8, 2019-02-18

Meeting called to order: 11:04 AM EST

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/P2654_Meeting_8.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Adam W. Ley (ASSET InterTech)
Jan Schat (NXP Semiconductors)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)

Guests:
---

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Louis Ungar (A.T.E. Solutions)

2. Agenda

Brian moved to accept the agenda as proposed, seconded by Terry, no objections.

3. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed.
    • The current slide pack still appears to be the latest on the IEEE SA website.

4. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • Meeting #7, February 11 (updated draft circulated February 14)
    • No further corrections noted.
    • Terry moved to approve, Carl seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

5. Review Open Action Items

6. Discussion Topics

6 a) Update on WG Elections {Slide 12}

  • Due to confusion in a previous email, the nomination period was extended to the commencement of this meeting. No new submissions were made.
  • Brian will circulating a statement of the nominations by email later, and starting the 14-day period for accepting/declining nominations.
  • Before filtering those that are ineligible, the nominations stand as:
    • For Chair: Ian McIntosh, Jon Stewart, Eric Cormack, Michele Portolan
    • For Vice-chair: Carl Walker, Adam Ley, Heiko Ehrenberg, Naveen Srivastava, Terry Duepner, Brad Van Treuren, Michele Portolan, Louis Ungar
    • For Editor: Adam Ley, Michele Portolan, Brad Van Treuren, Peter Horwood, Eric Cormack
    • For Secretary: Adam Ley, Eric Cormack, Louis Ungar, Carl Walker, Jon Stewart
  • Eligibility requires that nominees are IEEE-SA members or willing to take such membership and are voting members of the group.  By convention,  voting membership is taken at the point the elections process commenced (i.e. February 4th).
  • As nominees can only stand for one office, the next 14-day period allows for the nominees to discuss which, if any, offices they are willing to accept nominations for.

6 b) Top-down vs bottom-up approaches {Slide 13}

  • Slides 13 lists historical observations on the topic from the SJTAG Initiative Group meetings.
  • Query has to work from the top level, the bottom is where the "action" needs to take place.
  • "Events" that cause actions can only come from the top level: "Effectors" are top-down but "requests" come from the target level up.
  • Isn't the target delivering information rather than requesting it?  There's some level of where you have granularity of control. There is a feature set that gets exposed at the top.
  • It would be easier if this were diagrammed, like an Object Interaction Diagram or UML Sequence Diagram.
  • Similar to Brad and Michele's article in Design & Test on an alternative execution engine (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6584739).
  • Plant UML (http://plantuml.com/) is a free tool that is driven from text file inputs (making the descriptions parsable and easy to email) that could be used to prepare such diagrams. ArgoUML (http://argouml.tigris.org/) is another.
  • Need a use case to model, need to understand what the entities are, what messages need passed between them. Messages affect the state of that object/entity. Some simple can easily be identified: Idle, Waiting for request, Sending request upstream, Waiting for reply, etc.
  • Terry and Brad offered to collaborate on creating a diagram {ACTION}.
  • Simplest case would involve only two levels (entities) which can then be extended. Supporting a hierarchy needs recursion and that can probably be demonstrated with only 3 levels.
  • An example of running BIST on a device is probably a good starting point.
  • The quote at the bottom of the slide is probably only part of the picture, detail within the whole case. The part of the last sentence following "but" relates to the physical part, the effector, the part before is talking about the requester, establishing where you are in the path.
  • SIBs, Scan Path Linkers, etc., have to be enabled from the top-down.
  • We can expect the diagram to generate lots of terminology for the glossary.

7. Any Other Business

  • {Slide 14}
  • None.

8. Today's Key Takeaways

  • A diagram is needed to help illustrate concepts.
  • UML may be the best language for diagramming.

9. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • "Interface" is missing.
      • No obvious IEEE accepted definition.
      • 1687 has definitions for specialised forms: Device Interface and Instrument Interface.
      • We may need specialised forms for Software Interface and Hardware Interface.
      • "Interface" is overloaded and requires disambiguation.
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • Device - do we mean a packaged device? May be many devices in a package. "Device" is often used as a modifier, e.g. "device package", "device identification".
    • Use Case Context, Application Context
    • Legacy Infrastructure, SJTAG Infrastructure (placeholders for now, really for working group to define).
    • "Generators": May need to be qualified as "Test Generators" (used by the integrator/tester) and "Model Generators" (used by IP providers, interface designers, etc.).
    • AccessLink and DataLink descriptions will need to be revised.
    • See P1687.1's definitions on Slide 31 of the pack presented by Jeff Rearick on Jan 14, 2019.

10. Schedule next meeting

  • February 25, 2019.

11. Topic for next meeting

  • Top-down and bottom-up: Review and develop diagram.

12. Reminders

  • None.

13. List New Action Items

  • Brad, Terry: Draft up a diagram for a simple use case.

14. Adjourn

  • Terry moved to adjourn, seconded by Peter.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:50 AM EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh