Phone Conference P1450.3 Working Group

Thursday, May 19, 2005 -  10:00-11:30 Pacific


Tony Taylor (chair)
Greg Maston (scribe)
Daniel Fan
John Cosley
Bruce Kaufmann
Jose Santiago





1. very brief status of the dot1 project

2. memory checking proposal from Greg - comment and feedback

3. sub-sets of STIL - a new issue for discussion. What are appropriate sub-sets of the language? Is dot3 the place to define them (i.e., as part of the "targetting" goal). See information attached to email.

4. tester channel map - should we formalize the syntax (refer to D09, clause 10, p25)? If YES, then what are the important attributes? Can anyone propose an existing channel-map format?



IEEE meeting clearances

Nothing under discussion or presentation for this meeting was identified as being proprietary or restricted.

Dot1 status
Concern about negative balloters. Tony to prepare some material to identify the attempts (and the statements that the others just wouldn't vote).

Expiration of dot-3
Currently on extension, need to get to revcom by oct. 17, 2005 (which means to finish the document and get it through ballot). Proposal is to submit new PAR, we don't expect to be able to ballot this within this time frame.

tester channel map
- Current proposal is to use dot1 name maps. Issue is do we need more explicit attributes? - for instance channel number, type, multi-site references, probe mapping. Perhaps we should use standard pin-file formats if avail?
- AI to Tony to request info from ate providers and users, to look to see if there is a level of definition above where we are today.

Tony presented his subsets proposal. Several concerns were raised over the current restrictions - for instance with the "basic" there were concerns about restrictions of # of WFC in waveforms, and to  allow Loops but one level only, and to allow the \r modifier.

Also it was identified that dot2 is missing, and there are at least two partitions of data within dot2 (basic and levels-on-the-fly)

Potential to subset dot3 as well, for instance moving "fluid rules" separately.

Also perhaps there's a diagnostic subset to include X, fail report

After this discussion there was strong sense that syntax requirements for these subsets didn't make sense today, but the notion was valid and valuable. Tony will move this effort to the STIL Users Group.

Bruce and Dan attempting to do better rules-checking of their test environments, and identifying concerns with the current spec - on-going.

Greg owes a revamp to the memory spec - coming.

Next meeting

Date: Next meeting Thursday, June 2
Time: 10:00 to 11:30 Pacific
Dial-in#: 888-635-9997
Participant code: 539645

Action Items:

AI-1: Greg -  update spec for "extended memory counting"

AI-2: Bruce - create TRC for the Teseda tester using the D09 draft

AI-3: Tony - address issues listed in "Dot3", above

AI-4: Tony - send email to NesCom re: the negative ballots

AI-5: Tony - do something about the dot3 PAR expiration

AI-6: Tony - solicit pin-file formats

AI-7: Tony - re-vamp the sub-set proposal and take it to the UG