Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: ATML Test Results Finalization



Title: RE: ATML Test Results Finalization
My apologies. I misunderstood.
 
I guess I have some questions, since I do not know how standards work under a technical committee would function. The IEEE indemnifies standards developers when work is performed under a PAR through the Standards Association. Will DATC provide similar indemnification? Does DATC have similar requirements for openness and consensus? How would this work? What IEEE label would be applied to the work since there would be no draft standard anymore?
 
We also have the issue of now having a PAR for an ATML base standard. As such, IEEE-SA now "owns" ATML and the copyright on all drafts.
 
John
 
----------
Dr. John W. Sheppard
ARINC Fellow, ARINC Engineering Services, LLC, John.Sheppard@arinc.com
Lecturer, Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, jsheppa2@jhu.edu
Senior Member, IEEE, j.w.sheppard@ieee.org
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: ATML Test Results Finalization

John Sheppard writes:
 
I speak now as Computer Society Liaison to SCC20 and member of the CS Standards Board. What Dave suggests is not correct. DASC is part of the Computer Society with a scope that does not include automatic test equipment. TTSC has that charter and scope. In addition, the CS SAB recently approved expansion of scope of SCC20 to make sure that ATML could be handled under its auspices. Further, as an SCC, SCC20 was set up almost 30 years ago to handle the interests of three societies---CS, I&M, and AES. ATML is clearly of interest to all three societies. If someone attempts to bring ATML to the Computer Society, the SAB will simply refer it back to SCC20---especially now that SCC20 "owns" the ATML architecture PAR.
 
I beg your pardon; the mention of DASC was a complete red herring, and I apologize.  I did not mean that we should move ATML to DASC, but that the Design Automation Technical Committee, the DATC, could do technical work pror to standardization within the SCC20.  The DASC was a throwaway, and an inappropriate one.
 
The SCC20 is the appropriate venue.  The question is what comes before.
 
Dave Barton
Chair-Elect, DATC
EDAptive Computing