Meeting Summaries

IVI Foundation

Meeting Summaries

September 10th – 14th, 2001

Boston – Teradyne Facility

1.Table of Contents

1.Table of Contents

2.Meeting Attendees

3.Directors Meeting

4.Technical Committee

5.Working Group Summaries

6.IVI 3.1 Driver Architecture Working Group

7.IviRFSigGen Working Group

8.Configuration Server Working Group

9.IVISpcAn Working Group

10.Compliance Working Group/Users Group

11.Signal Interfaces Working Group

12.Shared Components Lifecycle and Legal Working Group

13.Existing Classes and API Style Guide Working Group

14.COM Working Group

15.IviDigital Working Group

16.Marketing Committee

17.IVI Foundation, Inc. Members (10/01/2001)

18.IVI Foundation, Inc. Finances (9/30/2001)

2.Meeting Attendees

Main Mtgs*

Name

/ Company / Phone / Email / Other / BoD / TC
Anne Faveur / Advantest / + 33 1 69 18 25 92 / / X / X / X
Yohei Hirakoso / Advantest / 503-627-2671 / / X / X / X
Qi Gao / Agilent Technologies / / X / X / X
Guy Harris / Agilent Technologies / 719-590-3792 / / X / X / X
Joe Mueller / Agilent Technologies / (970)679-2348 / / X / X / X
John Harvey / Agilent Technologies / (970) 679-3535 / / X / X / X
Lynn Wheelwright / Agilent Technologies / 707-577-2568 / / X / X / X
Michal Krombholz / Agilent Technologies / 707-577-3188 / / X / X / X
Roger P. Oblad / Agilent Technologies / (707) 577-3466 / / X / X / X
Stephen Greer / Agilent Technologies / 970 679-3474 / / X / X / X
Mel Petty / BCO, Inc. / 978-663-2156 / / X / X / X
Fred Bode / Bode Enterprises / 619-297-1024 / / X / X / X
Don Davis / Boeing / 314-234-2722 / / X / X / X
Dennis Hecht / Boeing / 314-233-0194 / / X / X / X
John Ryland / Keithley / 440-498-3044 / / X / X / X
Bankim Tejani / National Instruments / 512-683-5323 / / X / X / X
Dany Cheij / National Instruments / 512-683-5286 / / X / X / X
Glenn Burnside / National Instruments / 512-683-5472 / / X / X / X
Jon Bellin / National Instruments / (512) 683-5516 / / X / X / X
Noel Adorno / National Instruments / 512-683-5071 / / X / X / X
Scott Rust / National Instruments / (512)683-5680 / / X / X / X
Zulfiqar Haider / National Instruments / 512-683-8374 / / X / X / X
Gayle Matysek / Northrop Grumman / 410-765-9754 / / X / X / X
Kirt Fertitta / Pacific MindWorks / 858-587-8876 / / X / X / X
Patrick R. Johnson / Racal Instruments / 210-699-6799 / / X / X / X
Jochen Wolle / Rohde & Schwarz / +49 89 4129 13044 / / X / X / X
Johannes Ganzert / Rohde & Schwarz / +49 89 4129 13405 / / X / X / X
Badri Malynur / Tektronix, Inc. / 503 627-5880 / / X / X / X
Andy Hutchinson / Teradyne / 978-370-1277 / / X / X / X
Teresa P Lopes / Teradyne / 978-370-1377 / / X / X / X
David G McKay / Thales Instruments (aka Racal) / +44 1202 872800 / / X / X / X
Melissa Pike / The Mathworks / 508-647-7493 / / X / X / X
Ion Neag / TYX Corporation / +1 703 264 1080 / / X / X / X
Narayanan Ramachandran / TYX Corporation / +1 703 264 1080 / / X / X / X
Rengan Rajendran / Vektrex Electronic Systems / 858-558-8282 x20 / / X / X
Jeff Hulett / Vektrex Electronic Systems / 858-558-8282 x11 / / X / X / X

* Indicates attendance at main meetings of members:

-Other = Other Technical Meeting

-BoD = Board of Directors Meeting

-TC = Technical Committee Meeting

IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes1September 10-14, 2001

3.Directors Meeting

3.1General Meeting Info:

Date of Meeting:September 12, 2001

Location:Boston, MA – Teradyne Facility

Chairperson:Joe Mueller

Minutes Prepared By:Dany Cheij

3.2Topics To Be Discussed:

-Introductions

-Review of membership and finances – Fred Bode

-Discussion/action regarding waning user group participation

-Discussion/action regarding IVI logo

-Next Foundation meeting planning

-New Business

-Adjourn

3.3Review of membership and finances – Fred Bode

Fred Bode passed out a members report with membership information and Dany Cheij reviewed the finances of the IVI Foundation. Both reports will be imbedded in these minutes.

3.4Discussion/action regarding waning user group participation

Gayle Matysek contrasted user participation at another standards body she was involved in. User participation was higher at early stages of specifications when there is new things being defined and user input can be valuable. Users also are mostly interested in class specs and should participate more heavily in those specs than in architecture specs such C and COM specs.

Response from users has been low from users even through e-mail so Gayle’s expectations are that it is harder to get users to show up to meetings.

Jon Bellin also noted that since at the next meeting we will be voting on new technology and specs to work on, maybe we should publicize this and see if we get more users to attend.

Gayle thinks that user participation will also pick back up when the specs are done and the users start receiving drivers from vendors.

Consensus is that we should not lose track of this issue and get it on the agenda for the next meeting.

3.5Discussion/action regarding IVI logo

Joe Mueller summarized that there are currently two logos that NI has created and that NI is willing to transfer to the Foundation. The question is whether the Foundation wants to ask NI to give these logos for use? How many levels of compliance we will have may influence the number of logos.

Dany Cheij stated that the green and purple logo has been used in a lot of marketing materials and the technical press identifies with this logo. Fred Bode agreed that the synergy is good.

Badri Malynur stated that in his opinion, the same logo may lead to additional confusion among users about the original IVI specs.

Dany Cheij stated that the drivers that are out there are compliant with whatever version of the specs that are out at the time.

Andy Hutchinson, stated that having extra logos will actually confuse users even more if there are more logos.

Guy Harris suggested that we could have a core logo, and have additions to it to indicate different compliance with different specs.

Joe Mueller passed control of the meeting to Fred Bode and stated that the fundamental issue is whether keeping the same logo would actually diminish the resemblance to the first generation drivers and the new IVI drivers.

Joe Mueller asked whether we can clarify what logos companies should use when they want to specify that an instrument for example comes with an IVI driver, for example.

There are several things in 3.1 that define what a driver complies with and those could be used as a basis to define and modify certain logos that can be used.

Jeff H. stated that within the conformance group, things are being defined to determine what levels of conformance there are.

Dany Cheij suggested that several of these suggestions can be combined to generate a core logo that is identifiable to people who are already familiar with it and have a variation of it to attach to products.

Jochen Wolle said that people who buy instrument will check the existence of an IVI driver and having one logo will be beneficial to them.

As a result of the discussions, the group instructed the Marketing Committee to do the following:

• Identify the logo(s) that are used to identify a driver as IVI compliant
• Identify our expectations of where logos may be used (e.g., products, catalogs, web sites, etc.)
• Create a document that identifies the logos that the Foundation has and the rules of usage for each of them. This work should be in conjunction with the conformance group and IVI-3.1. We anticipate either a separate document or an addition to an existing document.

3.6Next Foundation meeting planning

The December is meeting is planned for December 10-13 in Austin, hosted by NI.

The March meeting is planned for March 18 - 22 in Fort Collins, hosted by Agilent.

3.7New Business

No new business to discuss.

3.8Adjourn

Meeting adjourned.

IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes1September 10-14, 2001

4.Technical Committee

4.1General Meeting Info:

Date of Meeting:September 12, 2001

Location:Boston, MA – Teradyne Facility

Chairperson:Scott Rust

Minutes Prepared By:Dany Cheij

4.2Topics To Be Discussed:

-Introductions

-Review Agenda

-Review Voting Members In Attendance

-Approve minutes from the Paris Technical Committee Meeting

-IVI Working Groups

-Specification Final Review Status

-Discuss issues raised regarding IVI-MSS – Dany Cheij (NI)

-Define process for dealing with final review spec edits- Jon Bellin (NI)

-Review the spec status document

-Review the spec approval timeline document

-Conformance Working Group Issues – Jeff H. (Vektrex)

-IVI 3.1 Issues – Noel Adorno (NI)

-Discuss what work to pursue after this round of specifications

-New class specs

-Extensions to existing classes

-New architectural work

-Discuss agenda for December meeting

-New Business

-Adjourn

Voting Members In Attendance

Company / Voting Representative
Advantest Corp Japan / Yohei Hirakoso
Agilent Technologies / Joe Mueller
BCO, Inc. / Mel Petty
Keithley / John Ryland
National Instruments / Jon Bellin
Northrop Grumman / Gayle Matysek
Pacific MindWorks / Kirk Fertitta
Racal Instruments / Patrick Johnson
Rohde & Schwarz / Jochen Wolle
Tektronix / Badri Malynur
Teradyne / Andy Hutchinson
The Mathworks / Melissa Pike
TYX Corp / Narayan Ramachandran
Vektrex Electronic / Rengan Rajendran

There are 14 voting members in attendance. Being more than 25% of the total voting membership (22 members), this satisfies the requirements for a quorum.

4.3Approve minutes from the Paris Technical Committee Meeting

No issues were brought up with the minutes. The TC chairman accepted the minutes.

4.4IVI Working Groups

4.4.1Specification Final Review Status

Scott Rust reviewed the spec approval timeline document. Scott Rust asked all working group chairs to go through issues raised with their specs:

• IVI-3.3: Steve Greer said that he only received e-mail comments from Glenn Burnside. The group also addressed some of these issues at the morning session today. The group made two significant changes, that in Steve’s opinion, require another review period for the 3.3 spec. Joe Mueller asked whether the changes that were made to the spec need to be incorporated into the first version of specs. Steve said that he could make those changes, and be ready for another review cycle in two weeks’ time.
  Joe Mueller said that he is concerned about collecting information on how many companies reviewed the specs. We had a process put in place for review, and collecting this review information might give people who do not review a chance to drag things out. Jon Bellin and Scott Rust agreed with the concern but thought it was valid and useful to gauge the amount of effort put into the review.
  
• IVI-3.12: Glenn Burnside said that Steve Greer provided comments on his spec. Part of the feedback was that there was a need of some documentation somewhere about where the components are found and how can someone find them. Steve Greer added that his assumption was that the Shared Components Lifecycle spec would handle that information. Glenn does not think there is a need for a second review.
  
• IVI-3.9: Glenn Burnside said that Steve Greer provided comments and the same issue came up as in IVI-3.12
  
• IVI-3.7: Roger Oblad said that he received one comment through e-mail and that he sent an e-mail to the list server relaying that comment and adjusted the spec.
  Issue came up about having information in the individual shared component specs about how the shared components are packaged and presented. Discussion ensued. The outcome was summarized by Jon Bellin that we should not include information about shared component packaging and location but that we should include a pointer in the spec document to the IVI Foundation website. Roger Oblad will forward suggested text about downloading and packaging info to the list server. Each owner of a shared component spec will incorporate this text into their specification as an additional section.
  
• IVI-3.2: Glenn Burnside was in charge of the review, and he said that he did not receive any feedback. Steve Greer said that he reviewed it and found only minor issues that he thought he passed on to Glenn. Steve will now get his comments to Glenn. Glenn and Steve do not think that they need another review cycle.
  
• IVI-3.4: Steve Greer received some feedback on the spec last night. Steve Greer did not feel that the spec needed another review period, however, Noel Adorno, said that she feels that she provided extensive review comments and feels that she at least feels a need for another review cycle. In addition there was feedback this morning in the spec review meeting that necessitates changes to the spec. Steve now agrees that the spec needs another review.
  
• IVI-3.10: Roger Oblad received input from 3 people prior to posting the spec. Once the spec was posted, there was only comments from NI. There was three types of changes to the document: 1) formatting which Joe Mueller has taken a pass at, 2) content changes that Roger is about halfway through, and 3) issues related to the NI motions planned. Roger suggested a process where he can incorporate the changes to the document by September 21st, have two weeks of review after that, and have a two-hour phone conference after that to resolve any final issues.
  
• IVI-4.1: Srdan Zirojevic was not present. Noel Adorno said that he received extensive feedback from Steve Greer as well as feedback from Anne Faveur. Most of the changes were style guide issues. Depending on the extent of changes, the spec might need another review period.
  
• IVI-4.3: John Harvey said that he received a lot of comment on the Fgen spec that were mainly formatting related. He suggests that once he makes the changes, he would post the spec for people to look at, and hold another review only if there are issues with the changes that he made.
  For both of these specs, it seems like there is not a need for a 2nd review.
  
• IVI-4.2: Noel Adorno said that she did not receive any feedback. Steve Greer said that he did provide feedback but he does not remember who he sent it to. Steve will provide his feedback to Noel, but he does not feel that his feedback warrants a second review.
  
• IVI-4.4: Steve Greer received one set of comments and does not feel that the spec needs a second review.
  
• IVI-4.6: Ion received feedback from several people. Most of the feedback was addressed this morning during the spec review meeting. There are still 4 issues that need to be addressed. One of the issues is for the units of the delay parameter. Concern was brought up that changing something like that was not part of the intent of updating these specs since it would break backwards compatibility.
  An issue is surfacing that the process for handling the review comments and allowing for additional review periods is unknown. For now, until that process is defined, Ion thinks that there should not be another review period.

4.4.2Define process for dealing with final review spec edits- Jon Bellin (NI)

Jon Bellin asked about the appropriate process for dealing with an impasse reached when an issue cannot be resolved between the spec owner and the person who has the issues. Joe Mueller thinks that it is both the responsibility of the person with the issue to make sure that the spec owner addresses their issue. If the spec owner does not, then the reviewer has the right to bring it up before the Technical Committee.
Noel Adorno asked about dependencies between different reviewers’ comments. Jon Bellin said that it is the responsibility of all reviewers to check how the spec owner took the feedback into account, and object if they feel that their comments were ignored.

4.4.3Discuss issues raised regarding IVI-MSS – Dany Cheij (NI)

Dany Cheij gave a presentation on his concerns regarding the MSS document. Dany covered the following points:

• Dany feels that MSS is not inherently a COM only implementation. It should be extended to cover C implementations as well
• MSS should not exclude users as the intended audience and implementers of MSS
• Dany feels that MSS is not at the same level as other specification in the IVI Foundation.
• Feels that it important that a system integrator or user who has not attended meetings can read the document and implement an MSS solution.
• Where do we document compliance issues.
• Feels that content in several sections was lacking.
• Feels that several sections were misleading or inaccurate
• Dany presented 4 motions that NI plans to make after discussion of the presentation

Jon Bellin moved that the MSS Specification be changed to Design Guidelines document. Gayle Matysek seconded the motion. Motion was rejected by a vote of 4-7-3

Jon Bellin moved that the MSS document be modified to remove the restriction that it be IVI-COM only. Seconded by Teresa Lopes.

Roger said that he has no problem of modifying the spec in the future to include C as a possibility. Kirk pointed out that we cannot know if we can add C until the outcome of the whole discussion is determined.

Jon Bellin withdrew his motion without prejudice.

Joe Mueller suggested that instead we work on a motion to direct the MSS working group to:

• Bring the style of the document in line with the other documents
• Add a compliance section in the document and expand other sections to have more information regarding compliance
• Create a prototype of a simple MSS solution that everyone can review
• Use the prototype to verify that the compliance is accurate and complete
• Examining the COM requirements from the IVI-COM and config server specs for example of the kinds of requirements we might be missing
• Investigate the C implementation of an MSS solution
• Potentially inflammatory text about user implementation of MSS should be corrected

Joe Mueller moved that the MSS working group be directed to address and work on the above bulleted list. Gayle Matysek seconded motion. Motion was unanimously approved.