Work through the issues in the D04-resolution document, using new draft D04.
Resolution doc was distributed in frame format; Greg quickly emailed a pdf version he received from Tony, around to several people.
Red text below are resolutions or unresolved issues to carry forward.
DF1: Francis raised a concern over the justification of a pragma block if there's no concept of a violation block. Greg proposed the stance that a tool generating the output wouldn't generate the output if there were violations, which implies that the presence of a pragma block indicates that the data had to be generated successfully. This view was accepted and this issue resolved.
DF2: Annex A and B are updated, even though there are not change-bars in this document. Rather than attempt to review these sections line-by-line in this meeting, the Working Group agreed to identify issues and either discuss them with Daniel separately or bring the issues up for specific review in a Working Group. This specific issue is resolved.
TT2: Annex E updating still needs to be done; issue still open.
JD1: clause 12 and resolution of Economics still open.
FM1: Francis is in a point of stuckness and would like assistance. Greg proposed a dedicated meeting to focus on getting a tutorial developed. Jim is interested as well, both to learn and to identify additional clarifications. Considered having this meeting in the San Jose area; Jim and Francis may get together in Beaverton next week. Greg will ask Tony to consider whether we should schedule a face-to-face.
FM2: Decision of this Working Group to NOT put the Site and Port in the Patterns. However where these constructs should reside was not finalized, so the placement of these constructs continues to be an open item.
JT5: Loop additions. Jim opened the review of Tony's new syntax with a question about supporting a "continuous loop" construct, for example a Loop that is infinite in nature and requires some external operation to advance out of the Loop, for example a Loop used to establish a repeat function to allow a much-slower intstrument, e.g. a PMU, to perform an operation, which when complete sends the "advance" signal to continue pattern execution. Francis identified the basic model of this effort is to support existing (or in the works) STIL constructs, and that the "continuous loop" doesn't have an explicit STIL construct today. This was identified as a candidate new feature for either an extension to dot-0, or perhaps a construct to be supported as part of pattern execution and flow - dot-4. But until the fundamental construct is defined, there should not be a placeholder in this standard.
Jose proposed that in addition to min-vectors-between-loops, two additional values often maintained in test environments are min-vectors-before-first-loop and min-vectors-after-last-loop.
Greg wasn't sure of the meaning of the MinNest field... under what Looping environment can you not just have a single loop?
These constructs were accepted with the request for additional definition (text) of the constructs.
On point (b) of JT5, Jim identified that the perspective of the original question was solely on synchronization at pattern boundaries and not inside patterns. Greg referred him to the ParallelPatList extensions of dot-1.
WG1: Recommendation from Greg that an order of the blocks be proposed for review, and Greg indicated that this would be assigned as an action item to Tony since he's not here. The basic issue (to identify the sequence of blocks) is still open.
Clarification about the proposed face-to-face meeting; would that be in two weeks? Greg identified that the IEEE requires Working Group meeting announcements to be at least a month before the meeting (our scheduled phone calls go forever) - so any meeting would probably not happen sooner than a month out.
Agenda for next meeting:
Continue working through the issues list.
Fri, Mar 1, 2002, 1:15pm to 3:00pm PST.