Attendees:

00000000000000010000101111000000 Qamar Alam
11111111111111111110101111111011 Himyanshu Anand
01111111100111111011101000111111 Kenneth Bakalar
11111010101101101110110000111000 Prabal Bhattacharya
00000000000000110000101001000010 Sri Chandra
01111011111111111101101011111011 Eduard Cerny
11101110000101101011101111101111 Scott Cranston
00000000000000010000000000000001 Dave Cronauer
00000000000011000000000111111001 Dejan Nickovic
11011101111001000000000000000000 Mike Demler
00000000000000000000000000000000 Surrendra Dudani
11100000001111111111110011011111 John Havlicek
11100011001000000000000000000000 Kevin Jones (RGG Leader)
00000001111111111011101111111111 Jim Lear
00000000000011101110000000000000 Top Lertpanyavit
11111101101111111111111110111111 Scott Little
00000000000001000000000000000000 Erik Seligman
10100000000000000000000000000000 David Sharrit
00000001000000000000000000000000 Murtaza
00000001000000000001011001100000 Martin O'Leary

Decisions:

Action Items:

Details:

DN: Do not want to vote, uncomfortable.

JH: Accellera members are allowed to vote.

KB: Yes, that is correct.

JH: Is anyone contemplating changing the requirement.

HA: Four companies.

KB: What if inconsistent or redundant?

ED: Can it be sorted out after the vote?

JH: If there are redundancies and overlaps, they are fine. If they are inconsistenties then we can sort it out later. But, waiting for the vote will delay the vote.

KB: What happens if the requirements are voted upon.

HA: Yes, they will be reference points.

KB: Do we have to justify the negative votes?

JH: Yes, some explanation with a down vote. That is also what Sri suggested.

DN: Are, we allowed to see the votes.

JH: They can see and should be allowed to provide their feedback.

JL: Some of them may not be accepted. What are the proposals that will not be accepted.

HA: Can we wait for the vote for the feedback?

KB: Things I am going to object are specific language features. Doesn't make sense to have a language feature as requirement.

JL: What is your bottom line here?

KB: Some of them are requirements and some are language features.

KB: Discussion on Scott's Cranston email.

JH: Collisions during elaboration need to be resolved and is easier.

KB: Not enough to say, in some universe it can be done.

SC: What's wrong with saying it is being done in SV?

JL: Shouldn't each actual have designated scope to only VAMS operations and reference and other actual has only SV references.

ED: If you have unified hierarchy.

JH: We need to follow the definition of bind that those port expressions be interpreted from the point of target. Are there packages in the model. How do you reference a package. ED has a point there.

KB: The elaboration can happen repeatedly and during runtime.

ED: What you are saying is an implementation issue. Because you are assuming two different parsers.

SC: What is evaluate you are talking about?

KB: Evaluate is assigning values.

JH: That definition does not apply to checkers. The mentor model of evaluating is awkward for evaluating the port expressions.

SC: Yes.

ED: Also, checker ports are by substitution by expression, not by name.

JH: My point was not suggest limit the checkers.

KB: You can require something to be untyped.

JH: All the sequences and properties are untyped arguments. And there is flexibility to have those.

KB: How much apparatus are we going to put in VAMS for properties?

JH: My idea was to write those in SV containers.

KB: Then one of my requirements does not make sense. Evaluation of an assertion in the context.

JL: If we have checkers, then they could be reused in other places. Checkers should be agnostic and should be legal SV port and should not know anything beyond

-- AnandHimyanshu - 2009-11-03