Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-01-06

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Carl Walker
Heiko Ehrenberg
Adam Ley
Michele Portolan
Tim Pender
Brian Erickson (joined 11:10)

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • 12/14/2015 minutes (draft circulated 12/15/2015).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Approval deferred until after Brian joined the call.
    • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Eric, 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. Brad probably has one topic left on his list.
  • Try to get Al Crouch on call re 1687.1 - Possibly no longer relevant?

5. Discussion Topics

a. ETS2.

  • There had been no follow up on this over the holiday period.
  • Ian noted that if we were serious about submitting something for ETS2 then we needed to get the material sorted out soon and wondered if there was existing material (e.g. from BTW) that could be updated for ETS.
  • The intent was to present SJTAG as an open subject looking for solutions, so possibly showing a few examples of where SJTAG expects to help and the current problems might be a good start.
  • Michele agreed, commenting that a common question during the ITC poster was "why is SJTAG needed?"
  • May also be a good idea to show why the new standards are not enough to solve the problems.
  • It would be impractical to give examples of every use case, so may be best to pick two or three that will likely resonate with the majority of the audience. Ian could offer something on "covers on reprogramming" as that is the biggest application area he has to deal with, but possibly another example could look at a more embedded application.
  • As there were no further suggestions forthcoming, the group agreed to look for email suggestions on possible examples {ACTION}.

b. Close in on PAR scope and purpose.

  • From the previous meeting:
    • The initial PAR should address something relatively basic and fundamental.
    • The wording should avoid being overly restrictive but at the same time be clear enough to avoid ambiguities and creep in the scope.
  • This still doesn't help to define what the PAR is actually addressing.
  • Ian referred to the ITC poster which stated  SJTAG's goals as:
    • Make the "conventional" JTAG capability ACCESSIBLE through the system hierarchy
    • To EXTEND the JTAG capability to use cases beyond the "Conventional"
    • Provide COORDINATION between diverse standards for Data Links and Access Links
  • Were these goals something that could be built upon for a PAR? Does referring to "JTAG" limit us or cause inferences that may be misleading?
  • Adam noted that he was still getting back up to speed after a long absence from the group, but was aware that there was a discussion topic on the subject (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=740) which he intended to contribute to. That topic maybe needed to gain some momentum before we could make much headway in the meetings.  Ian agreed, suggesting it should be an action on everyone to try to add something to the forum thread (or via email) {ACTION}.
  • Ian noted that the forum had been provided so that thoughts or ideas could be recorded when they arose instead of waiting until the next meeting, but it gets little use. In this case Ian wanted to stress that the action on "All" really meant that everyone needed to make some effort to contribute a little to the discussion before the next meeting.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • ETS2 (continued).
  • Close in on PAR scope and purpose (continued).

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting January 13, 2016, 11:00 AM EST.
  • January schedule:
    • 13, 20, 27.

10. Any other business

  • None.

11. Review new action items

  • All - For ETS2, propose possible example SJTAG applications with associated problems that are commonly encountered.
  • All - Post thoughts on what things ought to be addressed by our initial PAR, either to the forum thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=740) or by email to the group. NOTE: Ian strongly encourages everyone to make time to address this action prior to the next meeting.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn seconded by Carl. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 AM EST.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh