RE: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR

Steve,

When you mean get to ballot, you mean have a ballot LRM available by the end of
the year? There are about 5 months left to edit the LRM for the fast track
enhancements + VHPI. During the remaining of the year, is there any technical
issues and proposals which still need to be resolved and completed?
I am trying to understand the timetable and contents of the new revision of the
standard. The consequence of VHPI being bundled with the fast track requires
update of the interface to synchronize with the fast track enhancements, which
we (the VHPI task force) said we will do as soon as
we are done with the VHPI LRM editing. However I would like that we ensure that
these enhancements are well known and specified today in order to be able to be
dealt with by VHPI in the timeframe this schedule implies.

If that is not the case, this would risk a further increase in delay to standard
for VHPI, and I would like to minimize this risk
Can you point me to the current fast track enhancements on the list to be
included for this revision of the standard.
Thanks

Francoise
    '

>From: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com>
>To: Francoise Martinolle <fm@cadence.com>, vhdl-200x@eda.org
>Subject: RE: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:06:01 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:99.4056 C:87.1726 )
>X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) r p m c
>X-pstn-addresses: from <SBailey@model.com> [85/3]
>X-Received: By mailgate2.Cadence.COM as IAA19086 at Mon Jun 28 08:06:06 2004
>
>Francoise,
>
>The goal is to get to ballot by end of this year. Allowing 6 months to ballot,
resolve ballot comments, recirculate, etc. is prudent and possibly aggressive in
time. Fortunately, most WG members won't need to spend a lot of time on these
activities. The chair takes care of the procedural and administrative aspects.
Technical help is required only in ballot comment resolution and any LRM edits
required.
>
>While I appreciate all the help in finding typos, these aren't what's holding
up the motion. Again, we are waiting on a second. (Someone, must send an email
stating they 2nd the motion. That second may include a motion to amend to cover
typos, etc.)
>
>-Steve Bailey
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:21 AM
>> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org; Bailey, Stephen
>> Subject: Re: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> One typo:
>> releated should be related
>>
>> Question about the dates:
>> initial ballot 2005/1/31
>> submission to revcom 2005/6/30.
>>
>> I thought that we were trying to submit to revcom by end of the 2004.
>> What is causing the delay?
>>
>> Francoise
>> '
>>
>>
>>
>> >X-Authentication-Warning: isvw3.cadence.com: iscan owned
>> process doing
>> >-bs
>> >X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to
>> owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org using -f
>> >From: "Bailey, Stephen" <SBailey@model.com>
>> >To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >Subject: FW: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>> >Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:56:56 -0700
>> >MIME-Version: 1.0
>> >X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282
>> >C:85.5827 )
>> >X-Received: By mailgate.Cadence.COM as GAA01993 at Mon Jun
>> 28 06:58:17
>> >2004
>> >
>> >All,
>> >
>> >We have a motion that has yet to be seconded. In case WG
>> members are
>> >not aware
>> of the process, I have a discussion of it below. Also,
>> please be aware that NESCOM's next cut-off date is 6 July.
>> Therefore, we should get to closure on the PAR ASAP to make
>> that cut-off date.
>> >
>> >The general process for making WG decisions is as follows:
>> >
>> >1. A motion is made.
>> >2. Typically there is some level of discussion to ensure all
>> >understand what
>> is being moved and why.
>> >
>> >Either:
>> >3.a. A second is received.
>> >3.b. The motion dies for lack of a second.
>> >
>> >If the motion is seconded:
>> >4. Further discussion (if needed) can be conducted for a
>> limited time
>> >until
>> the chair calls for a vote.
>> >
>> >5. Optionally, a motion can be made to amend the motion
>> under consideration.
>> (Generally, the same process as above is followed. Typically
>> discussion is much shorter as the discussion on the original
>> motion would have led to the
>> amendment.)
>> >Since no 2nd has been received yet, we cannot entertain any
>> amendments
>> >(either
>> for the membership class or any administrative/typographical
>> corrections.)
>> >
>> >6. Call for vote on the motion.
>> >
>> >As the discussion has quieted down and generally the issues
>> pro/con are
>> >well
>> known at this point, we are at the point where a second must
>> be received or the motion will be withdrawn. Other than
>> motions to amend the motion currently under consideration, no
>> other motion can be considered until we complete the process
>> on this motion. (This is why Jim withdrew his motion last week.)
>> >
>> >Logistically, we are looking at 6 July as NESCOM's next
>> cut-off date.
>> Therefore, if no 2nd is received by 8am (US east coast), 29
>> June 2004, I will remove this motion from consideration for
>> lack of a 2nd.
>> >
>> >-Steve Bailey
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On
>> >Behalf Of
>> Peter Ashenden
>> >Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:02 PM
>> >To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>> >
>> >Folks,
>> >
>> >Further to my previous message, I move the following:
>> >
>> > That the VASG approve the attached revision PAR for IEEE Std 1076
>> > with the following changes:
>> >
>> > Item 11: Change to "Entity".
>> >
>> > Item 13: Change "1164 and 1076.2" to "1164, 1076.2 and 1076.3".
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >PA
>> >(as a VASG member)
>> >
>> >--
>> >Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au
>> >Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au
>> >PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532
>> >Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
>> >Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >> [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Peter Ashenden
>> >> Sent: Friday, 18 June 2004 22:28
>> >> To: 'Bailey, Stephen'; vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve and colleagues,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to Steve for preparing the draft PAR. I echo Edward's
>> >> reservations about mixed individual/entity balloting.
>> >> Providing entity voting as a form of recognition of
>> support doesn't
>> >> really give any benefit to entities. Compare that with entity-only
>> >> balloting, where entities are on the proverbial level
>> playing field.
>> >> I think that is perceived as being of higher value to
>> entities, and
>> >> would be more likely to attract funding.
>> >>
>> >> An important point to note is that if the ballot group and WG are
>> >> entity-based, the WG can still determine separate voting rules for
>> >> subgroups, such as technical teams. Those subgroup rules
>> can admit
>> >> of individual voting. This might be a way of satisfying people's
>> >> concerns about disenfranchisement of individuals in the technical
>> >> work.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> PA
>> >> (as a VASG member)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au
>> >> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au
>> >> PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532
>> >> Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
>> >> Australia Mobile: +61
>> 414 70 9106
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >> > [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Stephen
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:05
>> >> > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
>> >> > Subject: [vhdl-200x] Draft PAR
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Attached is a draft of the PAR. Peter Ashenden (DASC Chair) has
>> >> > already performed one review cycle and the attached includes
>> >> > comments from his review.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that I'm suggesting that we allow both individual
>> expert and
>> >> > organization entity membership for the working group.
>> >> > The membership of the WG needs to be discussed. But, here's my
>> >> > thinking as well as an observation from Edward Rashba of
>> iEEE SA on
>> >> > the options here:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. We need to find financial support for the VHDL-200x work.
>> >> > Primarily the funds are needed for the focussed effort
>> of editing
>> >> > the VHDL LRM. I have received estimates for the costs
>> of this work
>> >> > of ~$200k over the course of 2-3 years (two revisions of
>> VHDL under
>> >> > VHDL-200x).
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. I have been informed that Accellera has spent at
>> least $150k to
>> >> > get the SystemVerilog 3.1a LRM to its current state with
>> >> > possibility that a bit more funding will be needed to
>> complete the
>> >> > IEEE standardization process. Therefore, the estimates for VHDL
>> >> > are within the general ballpark given the expected scope of LRM
>> >> > editing anticipated. Hopefully, no one should expect
>> that VHDL can
>> >> > do this work at a significant discount to that which was
>> needed for
>> >> > SystemVerilog.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3. Corporate support of our work as expressed by
>> funding for the
>> >> > effort is a great indication that we are doing something
>> that users
>> >> > need (and EDA vendors recognize users want).
>> >> > Therefore, funding is a positive and we should be soliciting it.
>> >> >
>> >> > 4. Therefore, I thought that we could allow both membership
>> >> > classes for 1076. Although it has not been officially
>> placed to a
>> >> > vote of the WG, I heard feedback that the current
>> members wanted to
>> >> > stay with individual membership. Allowing organizational entity
>> >> > membership would allow us to also recognize corporate
>> support for
>> >> > our work by giving supporters a direct voice in the WG.
>> >> >
>> >> > 5. Edward Rashba counseled against having both
>> membership classes.
>> >> > However, he also indicated that in some cases, such as
>> ours, it has
>> >> > and could work. Our historical operation makes it reasonable to
>> >> > believe that supporting both membership classes for 1076
>> could work.
>> >> >
>> >> > 6. Personally, I believe individual only membership
>> would hinder
>> >> > the ability of the WG to successfully solicit financial support.
>> >> > However, I will do my best to find the funding whatever
>> membership
>> >> > option the WG decides to use.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since <24 hours is insufficient time to review a PAR and
>> comment,
>> >> > no vote to approve the PAR will be held tomorrow (10 Jun
>> 04 Meeting).
>> >> > However, we will entertain discussion on the topic in
>> preparation
>> >> > for a future vote via email to be conducted in ~2 weeks time.
>> >> > (Discussion via email is also welcome.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm looking forward to the meeting. I think that
>> Erich's work on
>> >> > defining how PSL can be incorporated in VHDL by
>> reference combined
>> >> > with the VHPI and other language change proposals that
>> appear ready
>> >> > to go will result in a new revision that is highly valuable. It
>> >> > will also lay the foundation for even more capabilities
>> in the next
>> >> > revision.
>> >> >
>> >> > To review the proposals visit
>> >> > www.eda.org/vhdl-200x/vhdl-200x-ft
>> >> <www.eda.org/vhdl-200x/vhdl-200x-ft>
>> >>
>> >> <<tmp113842779_9644.html>>
>> >> ------------
>> >> Stephen Bailey
>> >> ModelSim Verification TME
>> >> Mentor Graphics
>> >> sbailey@model.com
>> >> 303-775-1655 (mobile, preferred)
>> >> 720-494-1202 (office)
>> >> www.model.com <www.model.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
Received on Mon Jun 28 09:51:14 2004