Attendees: Ric Dokken, Scott Franzen, Carey Garrenton, Jim O'Reilly, Ernie Wahl

Line and clause numbers if any are with regard to STIL.4 syntax document D01 dated May 25, 2015.


DISCUSSION: much of the discussion centered around the need for multiple Signals
blocks and their associated behavior. The need for multiple Signals blocks
arises from the Device centric view devised for ATPRG. This view is useful for
describing a device or device family. The Device block may describe a chip, and
potentially a package and the bonding between chip and package. It also
describes tester-channel/device connections. The chip has signals associated
with it via a Signals block. If the device is a chip in a package, then the
device may require additional signals, e.g., signals representing unused package
pins and interface-board relay-controls. ATE may choose to not support multiple
Signals blocks but when it does the contents of all Signals blocks end up in the
same name space. This behavior parallels the handling of multiple SignalGroups
blocks.

ACTION_ITEM: Ric will have SVN inform current participants when changes are
committed.

PROPOSED: named Signals blocks and features emanating therefrom belong in
Extended.

PROPOSED: group provides a rationale for splitting into Basic and Extended
syntax.