IEEE P1735 Draft Development Committee Meeting of April 22, 2013

Meeting Info

Conference Bridge and Live-Meeting


  • Attending
    • Steven Dovich, (chair) Cadence DR
    • Dave Graubart, Synopsys DR
    • John Shields, Mentor DR
    • Ray Martin, Xilinx DR
    • Jeff Fox, Altera DR
    • Dave Clemans, Synopsys DRA
    • Jarek Kaczynski, Aldec DR
    • Devin Sundaram, Altera DRA

  • Not Attending
    • Michael Smith, Synopsys DRA
    • Joe Daniels, P1735 Technical Editor
    • Krista Gluchoski, IEEE Professional Services
    • Parminder Gill, Synopsys DRA
    • Premduth Vidyanandan, Xilinx
    • Nick Sgoupis, CAST
    • Albert Chiang, Synopsys
    • Nitin Khurana, Cadence DRA
    • David Pena, Cadence
    • Bin Dai, Xilinx
    • Ruchi Tyagi, Cadence DRA
    • Syed Huq, Cisco
    • Meera Srinivasan, Synopsys
    • David Tran, Synopsys


  1. Patent slides
  2. Comment and Open Issue review
  3. Adjourn


Patent Policy

The Patent slides were offered for review.

No new claims were disclosed at the call for essential patent claims.

Comment and Open Issue review

Devin discussed rights and license requirements for transformed output. Altera found that transformed IP was constrained by the union of all IP rights and by the most restrictive rights from the set that is combined in a single envelope. The working group dicussion points included:

  1. Computing a partial order on restrictiveness is likely a larger effort than we have time for.
  2. Early identification of inability to support the required rights is critical for tools which are unable to separate transformed output by input source.

Devin suggested that tools would continue to support deprecated keys. The working group discussion points included:

  1. Encryption can be done by other vendors, so warning of a security hole cannot be relied upon.
  2. A right for version comparison could solve this by giving the author an ability to limit use for an insecure version of the affected tool.
  3. Suggested resolution is to make the vendor decision on backwards-compatibility of keys must be documented so IP authors can evaluate the security implications.

Devin noted that implementing a licensing proxy was a complex task. The working group discussion points include:

  1. Since there is the intention of an Accellera managed reference implementation, one approach would be to discuss that in the standard.
  2. Suggested resolution is to recommend that tool vendors provide the pointer to a refererence implementation

Dave G noted that there are two supported representations for keys and expressed concern about multiple input formats. The working group discussion include:

  1. Should the inline key format be deprecated
  2. The certificate format should be described as mandatory.
  3. Dave G suggested that an example of a standard encryption envelope could help resolve questions.
  4. What is expected of a tool vendor if certificates are presented.
  5. What would the IP author need to compose to reference pragma represented keys and certificate represented keys.
  6. Discuss recommendations for interoperable encryption using encryption envelopes.

Next Meeting

The next Draft Development Committee meeting is scheduled for May 6, 2013 at 16:00UTC.

Tentative Agenda

  1. Patent slides
  2. Comment and Open Issue review
  3. Adjourn


Meeting adjourned at 17:32UTC


These minutes are unapproved.

-- StevenDovich - 2013-04-22

Topic revision: r3 - 2013-04-29 - 14:42:28 - StevenDovich
Copyright © 2008-2024 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback