Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-10-19

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brad Van Treuren
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:10)
Peter Horwood (joined 11:13)
Bill Eklow (joined 11:13)

By Proxy:


2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of October 12 minutes (draft circulated on 10/12/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Approval deferred until Heiko had joined the call.
    • Heiko moved to approve, seconded by Brad. 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.
  • Ian will contact Bill for advice on PAR submission. COMPLETE
    • Bill had suggested that obtaining Study Group status may be preferable before submitting a PAR. Brad thought this may be because 1687.1's PAR has just been approved by TTSC to go to NESCOM and their Study Group status has been extended to cover them until NESCOM considers the PAR.
    • {Heiko joined}
    • A Study Group status would move us from an ad hoc group to having some "official" status. Brian asked if putting a PAR to TTSC would give us a standard number. Ian and Brad thought not. You can propose a number (if a derivative of another standard) but it would not be official, and that's not possible at all if the PAR is for the first in a new series of standards.
    • {Peter, Bill joined}
    • Bill noted that it was expected procedure to go through TTSC for approval before the PAR goes to NESCOM. He could bring it to TTSC (perhaps along with Heiko and Adam who are also on the TTSC) - next meeting is in December. Brad remarked that Adam seemed to organising a face-to-face of TTSC at ITC. Bill acknowledged that and suggested that he could maybe try to get some feedback on a draft PAR from TTSC people during ITC.  Ian will try to make sure that Bill has the text before ITC (Nov. 15) {ACTION}.

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?
- Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 48

  • The intent was to continue with the breakdown of the Key Takeaways started last week.
  • {Brad shared the Key Takeaways and the Requirements worksheets}
  • The Key Takeaways from row 49 regarding AccessLinks and DataLinks spawned several distinct requirements.
    • AccessLink and DataLinks shall be separated in the time domain.
    • AccessLink shall be responsible for the control flow of the connection.
    • DataLink shall be responsible for the data flow of the connection.
    • AccessLink connection shall remain stable during the DataLink transmission.
    • The AccessLink must be completely established before the DataLink may proceed.
  • Similarly, the Key Takeaway from row 49 generated several capabilities related how scheduling would differ from the largely hand-crafted status quo, as well as the following requirement:
    • The model must manage the states of the AccessLinks .
  • The group reached Row 50 of Ian's sheet before time ran out.
  • The updated version of Brad's Requirement Excel file is available here: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SJTAG%20Requirement%20List%2020161019.xlsx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Enumerate our requirements - continued
    • What are we trying to implement?
    • Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 51.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

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 26. Eric and Carl out.
  • November schedule:
    • 2, 9, 16, 23, 30.
  • Eric reminded the group that daylight savings would end in the coming weeks, October 30 for UK/Europe and November 6 for US.  This means that the November 2 meeting will be at 3 PM GMT/4 PM CET for those outside the US.

10. Any other business

  • Ian has circulated some screenshots of his proposed styling for the forums when the new software is deployed.  There is no immediate rush and Ian is waiting on the US English language pack being released for the latest software.
  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • Ian: Make sure that Bill has the text before ITC (Nov. 15).

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brian.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:05 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh