From: owner-stds-1450-4@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Daniel Fan
[daniel@san-jose.tt.slb.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:39 AM
To: Ernst_Wahl; jim_oreilly@agilent.com
Cc: stds-1450-4@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: stds-1450.4: Re: Jim O'Reilly's assessment


Ernie, Jim and all:

Thanks for the great start. It will help us to get all our idea
together and converge to the same page. I am adding my .02$
for one of the discussion.


> >     - a transition is found, and it's greater than a programmed lower 
> limit,
> >       and less than a programmed upper limit.  Depending on circumstances,
> >       either the lower limit only, the upper limit only, or both, may be
> >       present.  This would represent a passing search.
> >     - a transition is found, but its either lower than the lower limit, or
> >       greater than the upper limit (or perhaps both, depending on the 
> values
> >       assigned to the upper and lower limits - but in that case, the 
> results
> >       would probably NOT be what the user intended!).  This would represent
> >       a failing search.
> >     - No transition is found in the range searched.  In most cases, I as a
> >       user would want to distinguish this condition from a search in which
> >       a transition was found, but was outside the pass/fail limits.
> >
>
>The test, via the testmethod, has a pass/fail status and potentially,
>parametric results.  Would it be sufficient to, in the flow, distinguish
>the "no transition is found in the search range" situation by a fail
>with no parametric result ?
>
>Naturally, this kind of concern falls within the debate over whether we
>want STIL to provide a testflow prescription or a complete testflow
>capable of running on any ATE (i favor the former but don't want to
>create a structure that impedes the latter).

I do not think we are considering this is ATE capability or not. If I am
the user - I will like to know the above three different results because
it is possible a programming error on the third scenario. I do want to
have different program flow and soft bin for that result.  We should not
bound by the ATE capability and should consider the user's need.

Regards,
Daniel

-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fan             E-mail : daniel@san-jose.tt.slb.com
Schlumberger - ATE     Phone  : (408) 586-6518
150 Baytech Drive      Fax    : (408) 586-4677
San Jose, CA 95134
-----------------------------------------------------------