|
Meeting 32 Minutes Teleconference, August 13th, 2007 A quorum of six out of six voting members present. Five non-voting members are also present. Attendance and voter status indicated on the roster web page. Attendees
1. Call to Order Call to
order on August 13th
2007 at 9 am PDT 2. Approval of Meeting 31 Minutes Approval of June 11 meeting 31 minutes Solicit motion to approve the minutes • Darren made the motion • Yaron seconded the motion • No objections, motion passed 3. Status Update Andy : First we need to go through the status and review of issues for each of the clauses outstanding for the 2008 LRM. There are a couple of action items outstanding from June 11th: Andy : The first is that Darren Galpin is now a voting member. Also, Joe Hupcey was tracking down a working MeetingPlace India toll-free number. India telephony regulations prevent making a toll-free number available. The best solution is to use SkypeOut to join the conference call. This currently runs about 15 cents per minute and is the most economical way to call in. Andy : The second open issue is about the Vice chair election -
Joe H : How many meetings do we need to attend? Andy : Three out of the last four meetings must be attended. Yaron: This is our decision, not a binding bylaw from DASC. DASC allow us to go by a lower attendance than this i.e. 2 out of 3 or we can drop this altogether, but as it's currently stated it's 3 out of 4 attendances. Andy : I believe that any issue should be voted on by an informed choice and that we should make sure that the vote casting members are up date, although it’s a graduating scale as to whether someone is up to date or not. Joe D : I recommend attendance for 3 out of 4. Joe Hupcey : I’d imagine if someone participates regularly and can catch up on current issues, one meeting then we could allow that they may have to drop out for a couple of cycles, maybe due to work or holiday priorities. As they have been an active participant they would be quickly made up-to-date and it would be a good opportunity to reengage them. Andy : So Joe you’re saying you think its harsh to make it 3 out of 4? With regard to catching up – Yaron could the person not send an email?? Joe : They might have a tapeout or something taking priority. Andy : I think what’s best is that I mail out to the reflector to reiterate the message to all about how to keep their voting rights. Joe D : I agree but from a procedural point of view we also need to consider the schedule. Perhaps a solution would be to have a series of short meetings in September time frame so that we’re in sync at that point and have the necessary voting rights? Andy : People can potentially mail in on an arbitrary date now for attendance – lets consider these suggestions and move on now to the current status. We have just shy of 180 issues currently posted (179) for the six clauses.
Task Force Chairs Report Constant Fields Stylianos Diamantidis: We have 17 issues ■ Six are closed ■ Six others are assigned to the editor for updates ■ So, that leaves five that are still open, of which one is Deferred (floating point) and four still in discussion. Of these, two will probably go forward for updates and two will most likely be closed Encapsulation and Name Spaces Darren Galpin : We went through all the issues in July and they have all now been closed or assigned to the editor. We have nothing to do now until Joe Daniels update. Messaging Mark Strickland : We’re about the same as Darren 28 issues were either updated or closed (mainly due to being duplicates). I worked on a lot of them myself Andy : Were any closed with no discussion on them? Mark : Yes but they weren’t strong issues mostly grammatical and choice of words etc Method Ports Andy : This is chaired by Matan Vax but he’s currently on holiday and I have his current updates. There are 17 method ports issues ■ One has been Assigned ■ Three are currently being Analyzed and 10 are currently waiting for Updates with Joe Reflection Henry Von Bank : Hi – I’ve been either Out of town or on vacation since the last meeting. Darren’s been very helpful working on these for me. A number have been updated and a couple closed and a couple more can be updated later this week. I’m a bit behind with these. One or two issues are in task discussion Andy : Has any progress been made on any issues that have been assigned to the Task force? Henry : Clarification is needed on a couple Joe D : only a couple as Henry said Darren : no – I left the lengthier harder one for you Henry : Thanks a lot! :-) Sequences Cristian Amitroaie : Andy : What have you found in sequences? Thanks to Matan for helping and posting some of the issues. Cristian: I am a bit aggressive as a reviewer WRT how to express them etc and I have some issues pending that have been assigned to the Task force. I would like Matan to update the explanation somehow as I feel we need an overall picture explaining the structure and hierarchy and how they work with regard to the drivers, hook methods etc. There’s a bit of a debate in this area – do we write the standard clearly enough to allow the users to be able to learn the language or just enough to use it. Yaron was the person responsible to decide the implementation details on this. I’m not sure that I have the ability to decide this. For examples how exactly do hook methods work, how should they be used etc? Andy : I can address this – We can just address things so that it simply defines the requirements of the language – the other end of this would be to produce a tutorial. It’s been generally agreed that the LRM should be closer to the former of these options. Including requirements, implementation and methodology recommended. An overview of two or three pages for the sequences clause however should not be ruled out. I would tend to favor dryness rather than verbosity. Andy & Christian & Joe Daniels: Discussion on how dry or verbose it needs to be – Christian in favor of more verbosity and desires a broad picture review of sequences. Discussion of whether or not to link to other chapters which already have the info – Joe suggested that he’d rather duplicate then take it out later if its too much. Noted that it is the largest chapter and as such could do with the extra info. Discussion continued on time and resources for implementing the extra. Andy : I would like Matan to review the suggested changes so the action is to talk to Matan and Christian about the issues in sequences chapter. Christian : Further discussion on other issues where Cristian doesn’t fully understand and needs Matan – something to do with APIs and macros . Review Status Andy : we’re looking at adding IEEE 754 floating point support to 1647-2008. I opened a request in the database for this quite a while ago (January 2006). I want to know the working group thoughts on this. The cons are that we could be putting more work on the table on top of the 6 clauses and jeopardize getting the 2008 LRM out by the end of the year. However if its not included in this one then it might not make it in until 2009/2010. Darren: If you do include this how about real number support? When reviewing the the reflection API this was recommended but its not in the current standard – where do you stop? Andy : How do you distinguish real numbers from Floating Point? Darren : I didn’t look into the details and Cadence haven’t released the documents yet either. Joe H.: It would be great to "go for it." Cadence is willing to provide the technical documents. The capability for it is in Specman 6.1. Joe D.: Could we see the material first and then make the decision. Perhaps we could have it as an add-on such as 1647.1 FP standard similar to VHDL. Andy : This might be an idea – like Joe says, review the documentation and assess the amount of work required to include it in the LRM. Joe H : I can ask a colleague to excerpt that from the documentation for 6.1. What version are you all working on (hopefully a pretty recent one)? Maybe you can take a look at the latest documentation and get the information? Andy : Yaron – would the Working Group be under any obligation to Cadence to include it if we asked them to release the documentation to us as a donation? Yaron : No Andy : Joe Hupcey – you and I can look into this if Cadence is willing? Yaron: We need to be mindful of the target date (of the vote). Consider if adding the documentation might mean that we might not wrap up within the year. Joe D.: I believe that we will not go to ballot with this addition. Yaron : This needs some strategic thinking if we might not hit the ballot date Joe D : Yaron and Andy – does the PAR allow for the addition? Andy : Yes. It's broad enough – it's if we have enough time and the budget for the editor etc. I’ll bring the floating point discussion to the reflector . The 6.x documentation and consider schedule. Joe D : we need the critical number to make the vote Plan of Action Andy :
4. Editor Joe Daniels : I just got back today. Of the six clauses, 3 of them have all the issues addressed or closed so I will start by working on them. There may be exceptions due to IEEE formatting requirements. Once they’re done then you’ll need to look at the number boxes to see if they’ve occurred or not. Then I’ll work on the messaging etc. When it's complete I’ll send out the definitive ballot and I’d like everyone to take a look through the complete 500 pages or so to ensure we haven’t caused any issues when incorporating the changes. (5% of the updates I understand, the others I’ll clarify before incorporating. I’d just like to say thank you to you all you’ve done a great job with all of this and it's much appreciated. 5 . Other Business Remember to send a mail to rollcall@ieee1647.org 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 Andy: I propose to hold the next meeting on 10th of September 2007 at 9 am PDT (1600 UTC) – We’re returning to the second Monday of the month as before. Does anybody have any issue with making this date? Stylianos : I can’t make it. Andy : Would you be able to mail in to keep your voting rights? Stylianos : Yep – no problem. Andy : Can I remind the working group to consider the descriptive sequences chapter, assess the floating point issue, its integration and any schedule impact and its consequences and Joe Hupcey to provide the excerpts from 6.1? Joe D : how about the additional September meetings..? Andy : I think there’s no decision on that currently Joe D : Joe H, Yaron and Andy, can we stay on to discuss this after ? 8. Adjourn Andy solicited a motion to adjourn. Darren made a motion to adjourn. Yaron seconded. Meeting adjourned. |
| IEEE/SA home IEEE Standards Association |
DASC Home Design Automation Standards Committee |
VLSG Home Verification Language Study Group |
The
1647 PAR Project Authorization Form |
(Updated Tue Aug 14 14:26:05 CDT 2007)