|
|
Meeting
34 Minutes
Teleconference,
September 17th, 2007
A
quorum of five out of five voting members present. Nine non-voting
members are also present. Attendance and voter status indicated on
the roster web page.
Attendees
Voting
members
Yaron
Kashai
Joe
Hupcey
Darren
Galpin
Stylianos
Diamantidis
Andrew
Piziali
Non-voting
members
Mark
Strickland
Mike
Stellfox
Joe
Daniels
Charu
Agarawal
Sandeep
D.
Mac
McNamara
Jacob
Daniel
Ajeetha
Kumari
Matan
Vax
1.
Call to Order
Call
to order on September 17th
2007 at 9 am PDT (1600 UTC).
Andrew reminded members to mail a
message to “rollcall@ieee1647.org”
in order to record their meeting attendance.
2.
Approval of Meeting 33
Minutes
Solicit motion to
approve the minutes
3.
Status Update: Sequences Clause
Joe D.:
I incorporated the document diagrams into the original source
documents. Need to remove any mention of tracing, including in
previous tables. I wonder if this also means that we remove
nice_string, as that only refers to tracing. But take that outside
for now.
The
intention is to pictorially show a use guide version on
sequences—this is a good set of descriptive material to have in
the clause. The only changes worth making are if it is not clear or
accurate—we will not add material to the diagrams. I have not
talked to Cristian, but we will track in the system whether this is
what is wanted.
Andy:
Open the floor to comments or any discussion on the flow diagrams
introduced over the last week (sequences_070910.pdf, section 25.5).
I'll solicit
comments by name if you don't speak up …
Mark
Strickland: The use of methods doesn't seem to follow
standard—for examples, whether calls are TCMs or not. Should
be clear.
Andy:
So, when we use a method, if it is a TCM, describe it as a TCM. We
might ask Matan—Did you originally author these flow diagrams?
Matan:
No. One minor comment is that we enhanced one document—released
in Specman 6.1.1, but we don't need to incorporate this into this
version of the LRM, as it is later than our snapshot.
Andy:
Can you clarify the change that Specman introduced into sequences
between the snapshot we used and Specman 6.1.1?
Matan:
Sequences have a method is_relevant() which is captured in the
manual in our standard. In 6.1.1 we move this method one step higher
in the hierarchy. The question is now whether they are relevant
after the generation—it is another step in the flow. It is
fully compatible if you don't override this method or give it
different semantics. It is a generalization which gives more control
over item ordering and such things. I don't know if I even needed to
bring it up., but note that in future versions of the standard we
might make a small addition to these diagrams.
Andy:
The clause as written is a subset of the current
implementation—correct?
Matan:
Yes, it is a minor addition which is not used or adopted by minor
users. Only Mark really understands this.
Andy:
Okay, I noted this. In 25.5.3 we have an is_relevant() call.
Other
comments on flow diagrams and how they fit in the context of the
clause? Are they self explanatory?
Mark:
One comment on the look—I think that they are confusing as you
don't see how they fit in when you read. In call body(), you start
to get a hierarchy view of how they fit together.
Andy:
An example?
Mark: See
25.5.1. Perhaps need some explanatory text before each section to
say how they fit together.
Andy:
The vertical lines which indicate time—in later diagrams we
have horizontal lines to show flow—aren't sufficient to show
activity?
Mark:
They aren't sufficient. If you read whole document by okay, but they
don't stand on their own.
Andy:
This is run time flow, not static flow?
Mark:
Yes.
Matan:
Mark's comments make sense. [missed ...]
Andy:
We could have notes to the side to say what is in the body() TCM.
Matan:
Perhaps within the bullet in a smaller font.
Andy:
It needs some sub-text perhaps?
Joe D.:
We perhaps drill down a little bit further into the first couple of
examples in 18 and 19. Everyone but me probably understands what
needs to go in there. I request that people submit the info to me.
Andy:
Can anyone jot down the lines we wish to include in sub-bullets,
e.g. in body() TCM?
Matan:
I'll do it.
Joe D.:
Are 16 and 17 OK? Or more changes?
Mark:
They are OK.
Joe D.:
There have already been a couple of issues submitted regarding
figures and cross-referencing. There should be some more
cross-referencing to tables and figures. When we get a version out
later this month it will be more obvious and will work better.
Andy:
Other comments/suggestions on flow diagrams?
[Silence]
Andy:
Mike, have you glanced through the diagrams?
[Silence]
Andy:
Stylianos?
Stylianos:
I haven't looked at them.
Andy:
Please look. Then send any notes to the reflector.
Joe:
At this point, are there any review by TF sequence issues?
Joe D.:
Yes - I will assume that Cristian will complete them this week, and
I will get document out later this month.
Matan:
We can move on the open issues in the next couple of days.
Joe D.:
Matan, I can't see the Word document you submitted for one of the
issues, it is corrupted. Please can you resend it?
Matan:
I had problems uploading it. I will email it.
Andy:
You can email me and I can then send it out. Any other comments on
sequences doc?
[Silence]
Andy:
Joe D., comments?
Joe D.:
Two actions - Matan/Andy resend doc. Andy/Matan to send items for
including in sequences. I will work on sequences clause and get it
to Andy next week for review - I will not be in meeting next week.
The examples in Reflection API need updating Andy. Thanks for
putting in the work and speeding things up - I am more happy that
the October review is on track.
4.
Editor
Joe
is going to start working on the sequences clause
Confirmed
Matan's sequences action items
Will
not be in next Monday's meeting
5
. Other Business
Andy will post method ports clause
Darren has been volunteering to take minutes in the meeting.
Can anyone else volunteer while Serrie is on vacation? It will be
appreciated.
Please mail a message to rollcall@ieee1647.org
to record attendance.
Any other business?
Joe H.: Can you or Joe D. take 30 seconds to outline
forthcoming sequence of events?
Joe D.: We go through final review of standard before
we go to ballot, then work with IEEE ballot pool to set up ballot -
may take 35–45 days.
Then submit to ballot - goes to review group, need to be a member of
the IEEE-SA and DASC. If the ballot is successful, we take comments
and review them to see what get incorporated, ignored etc. We
incorporate that material, we have a recirculation ballot for 10–15
days, then goes to IEEE, but is usually a standard from then on.
Yaron: We don't have to be DASC members to be able to
be part of balloting group. Additional fees for SA if you are not in
IEEE.
Darren: You can pay a cheaper amount for half year
membership.
Andy: Yaron, I'll contact you to discuss events.
Joe D.: As a work group member, work is almost done.
I'll put out new material to compare against old material to look
for new holes or omissions. We then wait for others with fresher
eyes to take a look and get back to us.
Andy: Any other business?
[Silence]
6.
Call for Essential Patents
Please review the
mandatory
slides posted.
The IEEE-SA updated the
patent policy effective April 30.
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.
An essential patent is a
patent that would be infringed if it were not licensed or transferred
to the IEEE in order to file it legally as standard. So, if people
leave with any claims that are essential patent claims they should
meet with the work group and take a look at the posted slides for
more information on the subject.
7. Next
Meeting
8. Adjourn
9. Action
Items
|
