Minutes of Study Group Meeting, 2018-01-29

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EST

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_22.pdf

The "markup slide" created during the meeting is here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_22_bgvt_SingleSlide.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Heiko Ehrenberg (Goepel Electronics)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions Ltd.)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Bill Eklow (Retired)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (ARM)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright) (joined 11:15)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Ed Gong (Intel Corp.)
Russell Shannon (NAVAIR Lakehurst)
Mikey Sudolsky (Boeing)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)
Sivakumar Vijayakumar (Keysight)

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • January 22
    • Updated draft circulated 01/23/18
    • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Heiko, no objections or abstentions. Approved.

4. Review Open Action Items

  • {Slide 11}
  • [10.2] Brad will draft a definition for "boundary".
    • Brad has circulated a proposed definition. This can be discussed in email and any amendments considered next week.
    • COMPLETE.
  • [21.1] Brad: Supply Ian with glossary definitions used by 1687.1 for "transformation" and "retargeting".
    • ONGOING.

5. Discussion Topics

a) Work on refinement of what SJTAG is.

  • The following slides are copied from last week's call.
  • {Slide12 - headings}
  • {Slide 13 - Goals (1)}
  • The "Goal" stated here is from the public participation invitation when this study group was first formed.
  • {Slide 14 - Goals (2)}
  • These summary "Goals" are extracted from the presentation to TTSC when requesting sponsorship of the group. They perhaps read as very JTAG-centric although the third bullet attempts to address other interface options.
  • {Slide 15 - Draft Scope}
  • This is draft text as proposed by the "Initiative group" (as are the following two slides).
  • {Slide 16 - Draft Purpose}
  • Red text is highlighted as it is a constraint that we might want reconsider, or at least discuss.
  • {Slide 17 - Draft Need}
  • The wording of this has already been pointed out to be deficient as it stands. It is probably too long anyway - the latter part has been greyed as it is largely just an expansion of the main points.

  • Intent was to try to brainstorm what needs changed in the Scope, Purpose and Need sections, highlight what might be good and what might be bad. Just record the bullet points, no discussion until next week, after we've got all the points down and had a chance to think about what was raised.
  • Best order seems to be to tackle Need first, then Purpose and lastly Scope, although the PAR form lists these the opposite way round.
  • PAR form guidance on Need suggests it should only be a couple of sentences, but on inspection, a couple recent PARs seem to have had quite extensive Need statements, reflecting industry needs. May need TTSC to clarify what is expected as earlier advise had suggested that the Need section on the PAR was mainly for the information of the sponsor and RevCom.
  • Noted that Need is different from Scope and Purpose in that there is no requirement for the standard to copy the PAR's Need. However, it is often expanded upon and taken into the "Overview" in the standard.
  • Brad took over the presenter role to markup a copy of the Need slide (slide 17) with comments {shared}. Refer to link at the top of these notes; the following is a brief summary of the points raised:
    • Vector based? Is that meant to exclude other possibilities? Not really, but it doesn't read the way it was intended.
    • Testing typically becomes less vector based as you go up the system hierarchy. It is still useful to have access to those vectors at the system level.
    • "Component access topologies" - isn't "component" misleading?
    • Written like a chip person thinking everything above them is "a system" - Terminology should concentrate on "systems" and "sub-system assemblies".
    • Talking about "boards and systems" says we're already beyond "components". The later usage of "components" (leveraging component level standards) is OK.
    • Grey text giving additional example split to another slide - useful information but not really "the need".
    • Is "co-ordination" meant to also take in exposure and discovery of underlying test capability? It wasn't conceived that way but it is possible. 
    • Boards are often designed with lots of testability features, but there's no thought of communicating to higher levels how they might make use of it. Some things may be self documenting (from the CAD files) others from chip support files (BSDL, PDL, etc.) and some may need to be externally documented. There possibly needs to be a "documentation framework".
    • Testability requirements need to flow down through the design process and may be outside of SJTAG's scope, but availability of testability features can flow up through the hierarchy and SJTAG should be able to manage that.
    • Slide layout re-formatted to indent comments as bullets below relevant original text.
  • Brad will copy the marked up text to the forums for discussion through the course of the week.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 18}
  • Brainstorming of "Need".

7. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • "Interface" is missing.
    • May want to keep an open definition but define specific examples.
    • Perhaps look for any IEEE accepted definition.
  • Carried over:
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • BIT, BIST: Existing definitions (from TMAG) seem to adequately cover the distinctions discussed.

8. Topic for next meeting

  • Work on refinement of what SJTAG is - continue with Need

9. Schedule next meeting

  • February 5.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • None.

12. List New Action Items

  • None.

13. Adjourn

  • Louis moved to adjourn, seconded by Terry.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:04 PM EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh