RE: [vhdl-200x] Out of Bounds Discussion - VHDL IP encryption - key management

From: Shields, John <>
Date: Wed Jan 12 2011 - 19:39:31 PST

Hi All,

As it turns out, I am a member of the P1735 working group, and the liason in the P1735 group for 1076. Steve Dovich is the liason for 1800. Our role is bring concerns we have back to these other working groups. I would be happy to volunteer for that role in 1076 to the P1735 group.

I read the comments from Scott Hoy. There is a fair amount of perspective he wants to understand about how IEEE IP protection works or should work. He expressed his concerns about what various vendors are doing and how he would like things to work. The former should be taken up with those vendors. The latter is his choice to discuss with vendors or either of the working groups. I believe P1735 has the better focus on the problem and has working group members who know the technical area.

IMHO, there are some misconceptions about how IP protection works in Scott's inputs, and an email discussion would be not be a good way to resolve them.

BTW, I think the only line crossed was saying something about what specific vendors tools do, claim to do, or don't do today. Vendors shouldn't say that and users shouldn't say that (for them) about their tools. It is also not OK to ask what a particular vendor's tool does, or for vendors to strategize about what they will do in their tools either. The focus has to be on what the standards do or don't say, should or shouldn't say. Any member, individual or entity, can say what they believe is right or wrong about the standards or proposed standards work items, too.

I absolutely believe Scott and you had good intentions. What was said, if allowed, should also allow the vendors to respond or rebut about their tools, etc. Victor was just nipping this in the bud. Scott's points could be made without a need to cross the line.

Regards, John

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Jim Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Out of Bounds Discussion - VHDL IP encryption - key management

Hi Victor,
Thanks for bringing this up.

> I would ask the chair to keep these discussions in bounds
Prior to Scott posting this, I was worried that he was
focused on one particular vendor, so I proactively had him
send his reply to me first. Since it talked about IP
encryption technical issues and multiple vendor points,
I though this was ok.

As a result, I am going to need your help to clarify the
issues with the post that you see for myself and the working
group. The documents I am aware of that are relevant to
"restraint of trade" / antitrust are:

Are there other documents that I need to read?

What I got from these documents is:
   1) Do identify patents that are required to implement the standard.
      ["slide 1", slideset.pdf]
   2) Do not discuss interpretation, validity, or essentiality of
      patents/patent claim
      ["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
   3) Derived: Do not use material from any patent without an approved
      letter of assurance (LOA).
      [derived from page 9 of patut.pdf]
   4) Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group,
      but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting.
      [page 10 of patut.pdf]
   5) Do not discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions.
      Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims,
      of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards
      development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus.
      ["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
   6) Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation
      of customers, or division of sales markets.
      ["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
   7) Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation.
      ["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
   8) Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object.
      ["slide 4", slideset.pdf]

Going further, personally, I don't approve of either disparaging
a vendor or boasting about a vendor.

Even if these are the complete documentation,
I also realize that there are sometimes rules that are
"commonly undersood" that are not written down, so I ask
you to forgive my ignorance and help me make sure that
the SG, WG, and myself understand them.

So what did I miss?

Since 1076-2008 includes encryption in the standard, the WG
will need to coordinate updating this portion of the standard
with the P1735 WG. Since P1735 is a corporate based WG, we will
need a liaison who can advise us if our concerns and requirements
are being met by P1735 and who would hopefully voice/advocate
any concerns or requirements of P1076 that are not currently
being met by P1735.

WRT to Scott's post, I think mentioning company names in this
helped identify the importance for the standardization of P1735
and coordination within P1076. I don't think it was intended
in any way to boast about or disparage any tools capability.
Nor was it to get help with any particular tool. Going
further it identified requirements for encryption from a
particular user of encryption.

Best Regards,
Jim Lewis
P1076 study group chair.

Jim Lewis
Director of Training   
SynthWorks Design Inc. 
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Jan 12 19:42:33 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 12 2011 - 19:43:00 PST