Meeting 56 Minutes

Teleconference, Monday, October 12, 2009, 1600 UTC; 9:00 am Pacific Daylight Time

A quorum of 8 out of 9 voting members present. 3 non-voting members were also present.
Attendance and voter status indicated on the on-line roster.

Attendees

• Voting members

  • Darren Galpin
  • Andrew Piziali
  • Yaron Kashai
  • Joe Hupcey
  • Stylianos Diamantidis
  • Serrie Chapman
  • Henry von Bank
  • Michael T McNamara

• Non-voting members

  • Mark Strickland
  • Mike Bartley
  • J.L. Gray

1. Call to order meeting 56 on October 12 at 9:03 am PDT (16:03 UTC)

2. Approval of September 14 meeting 55 minutes

• Solicit motion to approve the meeting 54 minutes

• Andy: This should be meeting 55 minutes

• Andy Piziali motions to approve meeting 55 minutes

• Joseph Hupcey seconded

• Meeting 55 Minutes approved

3. Status update

• Action Items

  • 1 Dec 08 Joe H. - will identify a driver customer for each language addition on the table and ask them to join the eWG and contribute both labor and, if necessary, funding. - Pending

    • Oct 12 Update:
      • Joe has not made any progress on identifying customer drivers
      • Joe to provide a report on reflector upon contacting list of individuals
    • Sept 14 Update:
      • Joe: Was able to set aside some real focused time and was able to find contacts for each feature
      • Joe: Next step is start contacting the people found directly or through appropriate AEs
      • Joe: Interesting note that the decision to set aside the "temporal coverage" feature seemed to track as no issues found in the support database realated to that feature
      • Andy: Missing results on temporal coverage not surprising. Intel using in house solution.
      • Andy: Might be worth double checking with Ziv and/or Intel on the "temporal coverage" feature.
      • Matan: Had a short chat on temporal coverage with Shlomi (Specman R&D) who seemed to be in favor of the feature
      • Andy: Appreciate Shlomi's input. However, need to identify customers to drive this feature.
      • Darren: One difference for temporal coverage is that it is a fresh development and therefore requires more work
      • Andy: That is correct

    • Aug 10 Update:
      Joe - Very limited progress. Database can be searched but it is difficult to really develop a pattern and draw conclusions. Will attempt again when back from vacation
      Joe - Another tack might be to contact members that have been past members but have dropped out attendance wise. Will follow up after roster has been updated
      Darren - The on-line roster has been updated to better reflect active or interested members
      Andy - Have we thought about a blanket email to all AE's?
      Joe - Yes that is a thought. Waiting until after the vacation "season" ends.

    • 13 July: Little progress to date, and it is rather challenging as it isn't easy to extract the info - it will take more time. Is there a list on-line of those who used to participate? If there is, we need to look at it and purge it - we need to look at the roster and purge it of those who are not interested, as some are not doing verification any more.
      Darren: I'll check the roster against the mailing list.
      Brett: Perhaps check why some people took themselves off the list? [Note: two did, Carl Walker from Cisco, and Alan Ahlschlager from Cadence].
      Serrie: Perhaps only check against people who have ever attended a meeting?
      Brett: Agreed
      Joe H: Agreed
      Darren: The problem is that I do not have that information, as only the results of the past four meeting was kept for voting privileges.
      Joe H: Perhaps Andy has the information?

    • 6 June: No progress to date.

    • 11 May: Brett and Joe now have access to the support database so they can search for relevant customers for each features. They will be working with their AEs on this. Brett has not yet figured how to extract the needed information but it will be labor intensive.

    • 13 Apr: Joe asked Alan Ahlschlager if he and Brett Lammers can access the support database.

    • 6 Mar: Joe is coordinating this with CDNS Support, correlating enhancement requests with P1647-2010 features. Expected to be a somewhat slow process as service requests are not currently categorized by language construct.

• Task Forces

  • Constraints (lead: Mark Strickland)

    • Named checks

    • Named constraints

    • Type constraints

    • Oct 12 Update - No update

    • Sept 14 Update - No update

    • Aug 10 Update - No update

    • Previous Status -
      Two documents have been reviewed and issues submitted into the bug tracking system for the first document. Mike has sent some issues via e-mail, and they need to be entered.
      Mike: Do you want me to enter them?
      Mark: Enter them - we can discuss them afterwards

  • Coverage (lead: Andrew Piziali)

    • Temporal coverage

    • Oct 12 Update - No update

      Sept 14 Update - No update

    • August 10 Update -

      • Due to limited time and limited interest Andy proposes to delay this feature
        • Joe- Keep it on the list for future releases
        • Darren - Motion to delay this until a later version
          • Andy seconds the motion
          • Call for discussion
            • No discussion
          • Call for objections/abstentions
            • No objections/abstentions
          • Motion Passed
      • Further Detail on the reason behind the proposal: Andy discussed the matter with several people at DAC (including Yoav Hollander), but as few people showed any interest in the idea, and Andy has limited time, it was decided to drop the feature. As Joe Hupcey mentioned that some users have their own in-house implementations of something similar, it was decided that the feature should be postponed rather than dropped entirely.

    • Previous Status -
      In the process of identifying changes required for the 2008 LRM
      Will post proposed changes through the Wiki

  • Macros (lead: Matan Vax)

    • Define-as-computed

    • Oct 12 Update -
      • (Post meeting email update from Matan as Matan was not at the meeting)
      • Matan: I do have updates on my AIs from last meeting, but I haven't managed to feed them into the wiki yet. I'll try to do that next.
    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Matan: Was able to do a read through of what was donated as well as the existing material. Need to do some significant merging.
    • Aug 10 Update - No Update

    • *Previous Status*
      No real progress
      Anticipating assistance of Cristian Amitroaie

  • Ports (lead: Yaron Kashai)

    • Interface ports

    • TLM ports as in SystemC

    • Oct 12 Update -
      • Material posted on wiki
      • Some reviews in, good comments and fixes needed
      • Looking for up-to-date material, current material is not whole story.
      • Yaron is trying to find out what that's about
      • Overall not very far from wrapping this up
    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Yaron: First Draft is posted on the Wiki. Mostly done but does need some further review and fine tuning
      • Brett: I did a quick review and need to post/send my comments for Yaron
    • Aug 10 Update - No real progress
      • No real customer interest
      • Relatively easy feature that should be straightforward to include in the LRM
      • Yaron's Proposal: add page to Wiki in which working drafts can be posted and reviewed
      • Darren - Seems reasonable. You (Yaron) should have access to do so
      • Yaron - Will make a top level "Work in Progress" link containing the various drafts that are in progress

    • Previous Status
      Read through the document
      Will post the text on the Wiki

  • Types (lead: Mike Bartley)

    • Parameterized types

    • Real data type

    • Oct 12 Update -

      • Not much to report, all current documents are in place

    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Darren for Mike: All issues have been posted in the issues tracker
    • Aug 10 Update -
      • Have not yet put issues into Mantis.
      • Plan to put working draft of document on Wiki for further comments
      • Henry has responded and has agreed our (Mike and Serrie) comments and has no additional comments. We are now just waiting for one of us to have the time to add the comments into Mantis.

    • Previous Status
      Mike and Serrie have reviewed the documents, and have e-mailed comments to Henry. To be put into Mantis.

  • Encryption (lead: Stylianos)

    • Oct 12 Update -
      • Still working on recommendations, will post on wiki when something is available
    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Stylianos: Did find some good information in the eRM documentation. Will start working on some "recommendation" documentation that covers what should be encrypted etc
    • Aug 10 Update - No Update
    • Previous Status
      Stylianos will tackle elaborating the encryption specification of e.

• Open issues

  • Darren: There are a number of open issues that maybe should be saved for Sept meeting which hopefully will have a better quorum

    • Oct 12 Update -

      • Issue 2765 - LRM Sect 1.1: Scope
        • PAR matches what is in document.
    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Issue 2763 - semicolons as separators
        • LRM specifically allows "empty clause"
        • Resolution: Close as "no issue"
      • Issue 2759 - rf_named_entity, rf_enum, rf_struct, rf_event do not fully list their methods
        • Resolution: Matan will look into this issue
      • Issue 2758 - Addition: dut_errorf() and dut_error() {action block}
        • Darren:Is there exiting Cadence documentation for DUT_errorf?
        • Darren: There is code out there using these constructs but they are not documented
        • Darren: Probably just an oversight but we do need to capture it.
        • Matan: Did not find in current Specman docs either. Should be easy to capture as it is the same as other string format operations. It is hard to imagine any thing different
        • Darren: Can we confirm there is no difference?
        • Yaron??: Concern about the semantics of the dut_error action (i.e. definition of an action inside an expression)
        • Brett: Isn't this action block the same idea as the message statement with an action?
        • Matan: Yes but message does have some other complications.
        • Darren: The original concern really is that it exists in the language but is not described in the LRM
        • Resolution: Matan and Brett will look into the code to confirm both variants and get back to the group possibly with a proposal on new documentation
      • Issue 2765 - LRM Sect 1.1: Scope
        • Resolution: Andy to compare 2010 PAR to what we currently have and make sure they are identical
      • Issue 2833 - no_collect not an item option for transition or cross cover
        • Matan: Don't have an answer off hand. Probably need to consult coverage team
        • Andy: Don't see why no_collect should not be an option for transition or crosses
        • Resolution: Matan will discuss with Specman coverage team and report back to the group
      • Issue 2789 - Default parameter values for methods
        • Resolution: Matan still needs to update the issue in the tracker with the discussion from the reflector

4. Other business

• Any other business?

  • Mail a message to ieee1647@edaNOSPAM.org (the general email reflector) if you were not recorded in these minutes!

  • FrameMaker source availability an issue

    • Some documents may be available in PDF only
    • Joe to follow up with Matan and identify source files for existing documents
    • Need framemaker sources to start updating based on Mantis reports and go to next review round

  • Anticipated e LRM editor Al Kolka (Cadence) has lost his job - may still be interested, Joe H to check. Joe H to contact other members of the Specman documentation team, but they are tied up with the fall Specman release so he are not yet available. Joe H to chase this up.

    • Oct 12 Update -
      • Specman tech writer is interested but swamped
      • Joe talked to tech pubs manager who is supportive (good news!!)
      • Trying to identify right person to pick up 1647 project
      • Target November meeting to have tech pubs representative on call
    • Sept 14 Update -
      • Joe: Did hear from one of the writers who is going to think about it and talk to their management
      • Darren: What is Plan B if we cannot get an editor?
        • Joe: Even if we get a tech writer they will likely not have a lot of bandwidth
        • Joe: I am selling it less as a writing task and more as "building experience and relationships" task
        • Andy: Important contribution of editor is typeset editing
        • Yaron: Lots of hurdles to overcome to conform to IEEE standards. Probably more than a "volunteer" would want to take on.
        • Joe: Wait for update next meeting. Would be good to bring in Yaron and Andy on the discussion with the prospective editor to set expectations
    • Aug 10 Update -
      • Joe - No update yet. Relevant people on Holiday

5. Call for essential patents

• The IEEE-SA updated the patent policy effective April 2008

• The details are available in updated slide set at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf. (See "Patent related" from the IEEE 1647 home page, "Slides About IEEE Patent Policy").

• If you believe that any patent claims are essential patent claims, please inform the working group. Review the posted slides for more information.

6. Next meeting

• November 9th at 9 am PST (1700 UTC) (Note the TIME change as Daylight savings change in US)

7. Adjourn

• Serrie motioned

• Stylianos seconded

• Motion approved

• Meeting adjourned at 9:22 am PDT (16:22 UTC)

-- BrettLammers - 2009-10-14