Web viewIVI Foundation. Meeting Summaries. Feb. 15 – 17, 2012. Anaheim, CA. Table of Contents. Chapter 1 Meeting Attendees2. Chapter 2 VISA.NET Working Group3

IVI Foundation

Meeting SummariesFeb. 15 – 17, 2012

Anaheim, CA

Table of ContentsCHAPTER 1 MEETING ATTENDEES....................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2 VISA.NET WORKING GROUP.........................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 3 IVI FILE FORMATS WORKING GROUP:.....................................................................................5

CHAPTER 4 IVI.NET WORKING GROUP MEETING........................................................................................7

CHAPTER 5 IVI MARKETING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES............................................................11

CHAPTER 6 DOD ATS FEEDBACK AND GENERAL QUALITY ISSUES.....................................................16

CHAPTER 7 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE............................................................................................................31

CHAPTER 8 IVI BOD MEETING FEB 17, 2012...................................................................................................44

CHAPTER 9 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING.............................................................................................49

IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

Chapter 1 Meeting Attendees

Last name First name Company EmailBellin Jon National Instruments [email protected] Vinod MathWorks [email protected] Kirk Pacific MindWorks [email protected] John Agilent [email protected] Vesna National Instruments [email protected] Adri National Instruments [email protected] Teresa Teradyne, Inc. [email protected] Dan National Instruments [email protected] Joe Agilent Technologies [email protected] Santanu Tektronix [email protected] David National Instruments [email protected] John Keithley Instruments [email protected] Steve Agilent Technologies [email protected] Jochen Rohde & Schwarz [email protected]


`

`

Chapter 2 VISA.NET Working Group

General Meeting Info:Date of Meeting: February 15, 2012

Location: Anaheim, CA

Chairperson: John Harvey

Minutes Prepared By: John Harvey

Meeting Attendees:

Name Company Email

John Harvey Agilent Technologies [email protected]

Kirk Fertitta Pacific Mindworks [email protected]

David Rohacek National Instruments [email protected]

Dan Mondrik National Instruments [email protected]

Teresa Lopes Teradyne

John Ryland Keithley

Santanu Pradham Tektronix


Agenda:08:30 – 08:45 Logistics

08:45 – 09:30 API Details

09:30 – 10:30 PMW Implementation Feedback

10:30 – 12:30 Resource Managers & Conflict Resolution (may spill over to afternoon)

12:30 – 01:30 Lunch

01:30 – 05:30 Specification Review

- Logistics- Start Review

Review Action ItemsAction Items are tracked in the source code.

API DetailsWe made some significant changes to NativeVisaAttibutes and removed the last of the underscores not related to resource manager functionality. Reference the VISA.NET solution in TFS for details.

Resource Managers & Conflict ResolutionWe looked over the resource manager API. We need more conflict manager discussion to move forward – we will take some time toward the end of the meeting to review notes from the October meeting.

PMW Implementation FeedbackAgilent did some work with it. Most of the basics seemed to work well. Then Agilent focused on formatted I/O due to some anomalies and ended up finding some interesting discrepancies between PMW’s implementation and Agilent and NI VISA implementations. There are cases where all three diverge. We will discuss these as we work through the specification.

Specification PresentationJohn gave a presentation outlining some of the things that need to be taken into account as we review the specification. The presentation is attached.

Overall Schedule Today.

Review past resource manager discussions. Specification Review.

Overall schedule expectations. One pass through the specification by May.


Specification approval by October/February. Agilent will have full implementation prototype by October if the May expectations are

met. PMW will have full implementation prototype by October if the May expectations are

met. NI will have some prototyping done by October, but not enough to feel confident in an

approval vote. Phone Meetings

VISA C meeting on Thurs. will be to do final round of review and get ready for May vote. Don’t necessarily need to have a weekly VISA meeting.

John will set up the next round of VISA.NET WebEx meetings – will coordinate with Mike to make sure that works. 9am (Mountain) Thursdays for 1 hour.

We will decide what to tackle first in the phone conferences at the end of the meeting today.

Specification Review John led a review of the specification draft through section 5.7. We had a discussion of how to transition from PMW pre-release VISA.NET to the official versions

when they are available. In Austin we had decided that the first official installer would be capable of uninstalling PMW’s VISA.NET. We revised that decision to stipulate that PMW would be allowed to co-exist (somehow) on a PC with the first release of the official components, and that the official installer will not need to uninstall the PMW prerelease version.

Meeting ScheduleThe next phone meeting will be February 23, 2012. John will send out a reminder, and set up the meetings. The normal time is 9:00 Mountain time on Thursdays.

Action ItemsDate Added Description Assigned To / Updates Target Date

General

Chapter 3 IVI file formats working group:


- NI is interested in reviewing a standard format to ensure that there is the possibility of interoperability with an IVI standard file format. At this time reviewing a draft spec is more aligned with NI’s resource availability.

- Agilent has a need for a common file format but is looking at a shorter time frame and would be open to using an IVI standard format if the same can be accomplished in the same timeframe that HiSLIP was implemented by IVI (i.e., ~ 9-12 months)

- Rohde & Schwarz has similar views as above on common file format for IVI- A consensus was that for this to be useful, we will need to go from first

meeting to draft spec in ~6 months or so. Getting a draft spec by the October IVI meeting is key.

- File format discussiono Updated the draft requirement spec based on discussiono Updated the open issues document based on discussiono Question: Does HDF5 really provide enough control over the bytes on

the disk? Is bytes on the disk really a requirement for the IVI standard file format? Users care about bytes on the disk only in so much that they would want to be able to read the data back (longevity of method to retrieve data) but really care more about the being able to retrieve data than the data on the disk.

- NI shared a spec of their implementation of the HDF5 based data format they use

o Question: Need for hard link/soft links in the data format o Question: is there a need for implicit definitions of axis information? o Question: How would/should the IVI standard file format allow for

storage of different types of information (perhaps post processed from the raw data) in the dataset (IQ constellation? Display persistence? Smith chart)


`

Chapter 4 IVI.NET Working Group Meeting



Chairperson: Joe Mueller

Minutes Prepared By: John Harvey

Meeting Attendees:

Name Company Email

Vesna Jadric National Instruments [email protected]

Jon Bellin National Instruments [email protected]

Dan Mondrik National Instruments [email protected]

David Rohacek National Instruments [email protected]

Adri Kruger National Instruments [email protected]

Teresa Lopes Teradyne [email protected]


Santanu Pradhan Tektronix [email protected]

Vinod Cherian The Mathworks [email protected]

John Ryland Keithley Instruments [email protected]

Jochen Wolle Rohde & Schwarz [email protected]

Kirk Fertitta Pacific MindWorks [email protected]

Joe Mueller Agilent Technologies [email protected]

John Harvey Agilent Technologies [email protected]

Agenda:8:30-10:30

New installer & testing progress. Spec editorial (or minor?) changes. Enumerate potential change scenarios and decide how to handle them.

This will guide the way that we handle changes to the IVI.NET Shared Components in the future.

Old Action Items:

Date Added Description Assigned To / Updates Target Date

General

2011-05-19 Run the IVI.NET Shared Components approval process.

Kirk Fertitta

2011-07-26 – Rescheduled to 09-13 due to locking memory issue.

2011-08-16 – Rescheduled to 09-19 per availability.

2011-09-06 – End pushed out to 010-14.

2011-10-04 – Start 10-10, end pushed out to 10-24.

2011-09-13 (end)

2011-10-18 Set up weekly meetings @ 10 Mountain time, on Tuesdays, starting Nov.1, 2011.

John Harvey 2011-10-24



Kirk Fertitta

2011-02-07 – Rescheduled to 02-27 misc. code issues.

2012-02-13 (end)

2012-02-07 Create change document for spec changes, and modify specs per discussion.


New Installer & Testing ProgressPMW and NI have tested them with existing tools and drivers. Everything seems to work fine.

Agilent will test next week.

Spec ChangesJohn presented the proposed changes. The WG agreed to treat these as editorial changes, and John will start the review process on Monday, February 20. The review will run through February 28.

Potential Change ScenariosEnumerate the kinds of changes that we might make to the assemblies themselves, and then talk through how we discuss them, communicate to customers.

We need to discuss changes that involve policy files in particular. We also need to discuss how to assign version numbers when there are assembly changes. We need to know when to change the version number on the installer.

Technology

You need exactly one policy file for each old major/minor version that you policy up to the new version.

Adding methods or properties to an interface will break components built against the old interface, because the new method/property will not be implemented by the component.

Changes that require new version numbers and policy files.

Enumeration members may be added in a way that doesn’t cause the values of existing members to change, but not deleted or renamed. (minor version)

Implementation changes to IVI classes. (revision version) Adding API elements (including interfaces) to IVI classes. (minor revision) Adding new exceptions, enumerations, classes that are not referenced in existing interfaces.

(major change if it affected existing drivers, but the chances of that are very low because there are very few requirements around what exceptions should be used in specific cases, otherwise minor.)

Changes that require new version numbers, can’t use policy files.


Any addition, deletion of interface elements, or changes to interface elements are breaking changes, and can’t be handled by policy files. (major version)

o For additions, consider versioning COM style, with a new interface that inherits from the old. In this case, a policy file could be used.

Deleting or changing existing API elements (including interfaces) in IVI classes. (major version) Deleting or changing existing exceptions, enumerations, classes. (major change)

Some changes may require client code to change on a recompile

Ambiguous overloads (for example, one overload takes IEnumerable, another IClonable, also possible with varargs, generics).

Versioning the Shared Component installer.

Any major change to an included component means that the installer revs the major version. Any minor change to an included component means that the installer revs the minor version. Any other change to an included component means that the installer revs the revision. Do we version the installer when the immediately previous version was not released? The

consensus is yes – the recent case where we did not do that was an exception.Coordinating the versions of the assemblies and the Shared Component installer.

Due to the potential for increasing the number of policy files, we will not try to keep the shared component installer version in sync with assembly versions.

Coordinating the versions of the assemblies and the Shared Component installer with the spec versions.

Not for the installer and installer spec. Not Ivi.Driver – would have to coordinate with two specs (3.2 & 3.18). Try to keep class assemblies in sync with class specs unless it is unreasonable to do so. Exercise

some judgment!John will put a document on the IVI.NET WG page that includes the above considerations.

New Action Items:

Date Added Description Assigned To / Updates Target Date

General


Kirk Fertitta

2011-02-07 – Rescheduled to 09-27 misc. code issues.

2012-02-13 (end)

2012-02-16 Create versioning guidelines document and post to the .NET WG page.



Chapter 5 IVI Marketing Committee Meeting MinutesGeneral Meeting Info:

Date of Meeting: February 16, 2012


Chairperson: Adri Kruger

Minutes Prepared By: Adri Kruger

Meeting Attendees:


Name Company Attended

Adri Kruger National Instruments Y

Kirk Fertitta Pacific MindWorks Y

Bob Helsel IVI Foundation Y

Jochen Wolle Rohde & Schwarz Y

Rob Purser The Mathworks N

Joe Mueller Agilent N

John Harvey Agilent N

John Ryland Keithley N

Jason Schares Rockwell Collins N

Jon Bellin National Instruments N

Vesna Jadric National Instruments Y

David Rohacek National Instruments N

Don Essner DRS N

Mike Woodring Pacific Mindworks N

Teresa Lopes Teradyne N

Vinod Cherian The Mathworks N

Eric Wetjen The MathWorks

Tom Fay Agilent

Eric Lord Pacific Power Source

Kevin Lam Ametek Programmable Power

Deborah Homan Agilent Y

Anshul Arora Tektronix

Discussion Topics: Roll Call Review of action items from previous meeting New Business


Summary of New Action Items Proposed Next Meeting: TBD

Previous Action Items:

Owner Action Item Deadline Status

Bob H Update IVI GSG Master document November 2011

Open

Deborah H/ Bob H

Circulate IVI GSG videos for approval – Visual C++, C# and VB .NET (combined)

November 2011

Open

Adri K Press release on availability of IVI GSG Videos January 2012

Open

Bob H/ Eric L/ Ray M

Circulate AC Power press release draft November 2011

Open

John H/ Bob H

Discuss plans/ status update for IVI .NET marketing activities

February 2012

Open

Bob H/ Joe M Discuss plans for press release on HiSLIP February 2012

Open

All IVI Press Release Schedule February 2012

Open

New Discussions: Update IVI GSG Master document

o From Bob: The Master Guide is almost complete and will be posted by next Monday (Feb 20/2012)

Circulate IVI GSG videos for approval – Visual C++, C# and VB .NET (combined)o Complete: LabVIEW, LabWindows/CVI, VEE, MATLAB, C# & VB .NET, IVI YouTube Channelo Pending: Visual C++ – Deborah indicated end of January as the new target for release. Target

for completion for March 5 2012 – Deborah will send out to group for review.o From Bob: We don’t have commitment to do either Measure Foundry or VB6, although both

short guides have been updated.o We are not going to do a video for VB 6 or Measure Foundry due to demand

Press release on availability of IVI GSG VideosIVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

o Content owner was originally Jared Aho. o Shift in ownership to Bob - Bob offered to write (Cost: $300) and distribute a press release

on these. (reviewed by the MC). Jochen made a motion to grant Bob’s proposal and there were 6 yes votes for this motion.

o Bob will begin writing the press release upon completion and review of the Visual C++ GSG video (sometime after March 5).

Circulate AC Power press release drafto Content owners for this release are Eric Lord and Ray Martino Purpose: We want to announce the release of a new specificationo Transferring ownership to Bob H; Bob to contact Eric Lord and Peter A regarding contento Targeting November releaseo Bob indicated that he will get with the technical content owners and deliver the press

release in 2 weeks – March 5.

Discuss plans/ status update for IVI .NET marketing activities o Content owner for this release is John H and Bob Ho Purpose: We want to announce after availability of drivers, and as of now, not releasedo Includes press release, GSG video, updates to GSG white papero Consider delaying announcement until critical mass of availability; when consortium

members are announcing as well; when all classes have a drivero Per John H: Limited IVI .NET release; all instrument classes will be available in installer that’s

coming out; but only two assemblies will be unconditionally released; other instrument classes will be conditionally released (meaning they may be changed in ways that are not backwards compatible); until an IVI member releases a driver for a class, the class will remain in that state

o Continue to monitor – postpone until February 2012 meetingo Jochen and Kirk indicated that this is still premature and we still need time to deliver more

IVI .NET instrument drivers. Currently there is only 1 IVI .NET that has been released – IVI DMM .NET. We should postpone and revisit this conversation until the May meeting.

o Targeting Autotestcon for an announcement would be more realistic.

Discuss plans for press release on HiSLIPo Content owners for this release are Joe M and Bob Ho Purpose: We want to announce the availability of products, and as of May meeting, no

known products shipping; still experiencing delays; expected to be 3-6 months until products available

o Consider announcing in coordination with consortium members announcements; critical mass = 3 vendors (NI-VISA (Q3), Agilent IO Libraries support, and two hardware vendors)

o Agilent and R&S will likely not have support for a couple of months, but we would need to wait until there is also software support to make an announcement. Joe indicated that Agilent has this support in their VISA library and have had it there for awhile, but it is not


immediately obvious to the end user that it is available. As far as LXI instruments, there are only a couple available.

o The group agrees that this there is not a critical mass to create a press release on these products. This item will be postponed until the May meeting.

IVI Press Release Scheduleo IVI GSG – March 2012o HiSLIP – Discuss in Mayo AC Power - Marcho IVI .NET – Discuss in May

New Businesso Autotestcon IVI Representation

- Bob tried to get a session on LXI and IVI at Autotestcon, but was denied. Bob recommended having IVI represented at the PXI panel meeting and asked for thoughts from the group.

- Review of past IVI involvement at Autotestcon – Bob sponsors two sessions at Autotestcon – the first is a educational seminar on IVI, LXI, PXI, AXIe and the second is representation on the panel discussion.

- Jochen recommended that we provide rich technical literature to showcase IVI and LXI features. We would ideally like to have 4 papers at Autotestcon

o Suggested Autotestcon papers - March 1 submission deadline- HiSLIP: Joe M- IVI .NET drivers: Kirk- IPV6: John Harvey/Deborah- LXI: Bob Stasionis- Optimizing system performance when using IVI drivers: Rob P

o Arrange a conference call on Tuesday to discuss paper submissions. Include Jochen, John Harvey, Deborah, Adri, Joe M, Steve Schink, Bob Stasonis (LXI), Rob P, Bob H, Kirk (Adri)

o IVI FGEN changes- Should we announce? The agreement was no that it was not big enough

o Joint IVI and LXI Marketing Activities- Steve S brought up the idea that has been circulated in LXI of incorporating a

customer facing activity with LXI meetings. He raised the question as to whether or not this would also benefit the IVI Foundation. These activities would be centered around awareness. We will revisit this and get an update at the May meeting.

- Bob recommended that we join these two groups together and hold marketing activities together. Examples of this would be Autotestcon and joint newsletters. This seems like an area in which we can benefit from doing joint activities.

- Determining how many IVI drivers are out there is very difficult because not all IVI drivers are registered. We would need to survey the instrument vendors to understand how many models are supported by IVI instrument drivers.

o Marketing budget - Expecting the budget to be $10,000, but this is ultimately up to the board to decide.


- Next Meeting

o Jochen announced that the Mon., May 7 – Wed., May 9, 2012 in Munich, Germany is not doable because of room rates. The most realistic meeting date would be June 18. This will be discussed at the board meeting.

o This meeting would involve a joint marketing meeting between LXI and IVI

Summary of New Action Items:

Owner Action Item Deadline Status

Bob H Update IVI GSG Master document February 2012

Open

Deborah H/ Bob H

Circulate IVI GSG videos for approval – Visual C++ March 2012 Open

Bob H Press release on availability of IVI GSG Videos April 2012 Open

Bob H/ Eric L/ Ray M

Circulate AC Power press release draft March 2012 Open

John H/ Bob H

Discuss plans/status update for IVI .NET marketing activities May 2012 Open

Bob H/ Joe M Discuss plans for press release on HiSLIP May 2012 Open

Kirk Submit IVI .NET Driver abstract to Autotestcon March 1 2012

Open

AdriSchedule conference call to discuss Autotestcon papers February 21 Open

Steve SUpdate on LXI customer activities at board meetings May 2012 Open


Chapter 6 DOD ATS Feedback and General Quality Issues

Discussion of IVI DoD Meeting February 9 At IVI Meeting Feb 16/17

Attendees

Teresa Lopes (Teradyne) [email protected] Fertitta (Pacific Mindworks) [email protected] Ross (Eagle Systems [NAVAIR]) [email protected] Bellin (National Instruments) [email protected] Lindstrom (National Instruments) [email protected] Jain (National Instruments) [email protected] Nichols (Premier [AMRDEC Army]) [email protected] Jimmerson (AMRDEC Army) [email protected] Mueller (Agilent) [email protected] Cherian (Mathworks) '[email protected]'Ron Taylor (Summit Test Solutions) [email protected] Misha (ARDEC Army) [email protected] Neag (Pideso) [email protected] Stabler (USAF/WRAFB) [email protected] Alexander (LM) [email protected] Harris (LM) [email protected] Adams (USAF/WRAFB) [email protected] Gorringe (Cassidian) [email protected]

ApologiesMichael Malesich (NAVAIR) [email protected] Fox (NAVAIR) [email protected] Davis (NAVAIR) [email protected]

Concerns expressed with IVI

Concerns expressed:- Source code availability (although on reflection he realized he had used IVI source code at one

point).- Missing attribute functions- Need to send SCPI alongside- He didn’t get “over the hump” of getting started on drivers- He expresssed a concern to get documentation that could be searched – he didn’t like

hyperlinked help.


mailto:[email protected]




















1. Documentation1.1. Would like better comments in source code 1.2. Want a flat more acessible file for finding information and documentation1.3. Want programming examples; 1.4. Need to see the sequence of operations (in examples and/or help file)

Described in detail using NI-Spy to see what SCPI commands are sent by the driver.1.5. Doesn’t go into enough depth compared to instrument programming manual (SCPI Manual)1.6. Need to always see valid ranges and values documentation1.7. He would like to see the exact SCPI commands that are sent1.8. He was missing general explanation of how to use IVI drivers – nothing that comes with the

driver that helps him get started and use it.1.9. Wanted documentation of what firmware revision the driver was tested with. Has problem

with new instrument revisions not working with old doc. He thought this was better in p&p drivers than IVI.

2. Education2.1. Is it OK to require customers learn a new technology to use a driver? Previous drivers were

simple and there was not much to learn.2.2. Education is an issue (just putting info in the documentation is not enough)

2.2.1.Customer did not know about attribute functions, SCPI pass-through functions2.3. Help people understand the relationship of the standards (SCPI vs. P&P vs. IVI)

2.3.1.Education could help put SCPI and drivers into perspective – clarify when WE think the customer would be most successful with one or the other.

2.4. Attribute functions – using them for fined grained control2.5. Direct IO interface2.6. Availability of SCPI commands in current doc2.7. Availability of source code and how to use it2.8. How (who to call) for support (he was surprised that when he called Tek for support that Tek

indicated that NI provided the driver). Where to go for help (driver vendor, HW vendor,foundation).

2.8.1.IDEA: require that compliance doc include support contact.2.9. Didn’t know about how to control error query, query instrument status (they felt IVI was always

slow because of this).2.10. How attributes relate to configure functions. Also the intent of configure functions to

simplify the programming (especially order dependency), range couplings on parameters, IDEA: IVI might need to require that all configure parameters are available as attributesIDEA Consider sharing existing slides- that is, those prepared for this meeting.IDEA Should IVI meet in locations that enable doing some training events in parallel


2.11. Class and specific drivers. Customers didn’t understand that the specific driver may have capability that was not in the class (or class extensions).

2.12. May be an issue with how modular instruments impact this. This customer group seemed to be expecting VXI-like moderate sized register models.

2.13. Although not required by the standard, most vendors provide a mechanism to send SCPI commands to the instrument

2.14. Coercion recording was interesting to them, they weren’t aware of it.2.15. They found tools like IO Trace (aka NI-Spy) essential, they want to be able to see what is

going on at the SCPI level.2.16. They don’t learn through use – but they get to the middle of getting something done

and don’t have time to learn then either.

3. Drivers are incompleteCouldn’t rely on driver because it might not do everythign he needs. He might have been able to get by with an incomplete driver if he could send SCPI commands.IDEA: should the ability to send SCPI be a requirement

3.1. For register based instruments they felt that the driver had some gaps also. Want the registers documented.

3.2. Want a guaranteed way to send SCPI commands

4. Bugs, quirks,…. “somebody please test the IVI driver”They felt that functions in the driver had never even been run – just didn’t work at all.

This was a significant part of the frustration they expressed.

4.1. This is another reason for providing source code.4.2. Drivers need to indicate which firmware version they are tested with.4.3. They were using many drivers from the first 5 years of IVI which are known to have many flaws.

However, they have a “bad taste” from this experience and are reticent to try again. We need to give them a “good reason” (his words) to try again. We need to “overcome” (his word) the experience.

5. Instrument compatibility issuesThey brought this up. They thought of this as how to make a driver and new instrument emulate something that is going obsolete.

5.1. Request that driver should reject an instrument with the wrong firmware revision6. Source code issuesIVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

6.1. Availability6.2. Drivers were hard to understand (compared to VXIplug&play). Although they didn’t seem to

fully understand the difference.6.3. It is not clear that these customers were seriously impacted by the wrapper issues.6.4. They want source code to:

6.4.1.Fix bugs6.4.2.Accommodate a new instrument firmware version6.4.3.Understand sequencing6.4.4.Understand what SCPI commands are sent so he can relate back to the documentation.

6.5. Interesting point – we’re not sure how successful they would be if presented with source code and they needed to modify and re-build.

6.6. (we presume they would need help to build the driver if they had source code)6.7. Air Force needs to be able to expand the driver – add new calls etc.6.8. They want source code to be able to keep the drivers working well into the future. For instance

to port to some operating system that we don’t currently anticipate

7. OS and Dev environments7.1. Visual Studio C/C++ and Solaris with C are the major languages. Most solutions are C or C++

based.7.2. Larry's system has a wrapper interface is that it is ANSI C.7.3. Some concern about long term support for Windows. What will happen in the future.7.4. For one system -- all TPS in CVI, but the wrappers are all in Visual Studio7.5. Air Force is developing XML based tools that generate IVI-like driver. We really aren’t sure

what “IVI-like” meant to them. Provides a standard programming interface for their instruments.

7.6. Some folks want to have Linux drivers, and also want them to be signal based.7.7. Most of these users were in C with Visual Studio, and the match to the IVI C (with .sub files

and .fp files) left them missing some capabilities.

8. How to handle attributes (could be end-user tooling, driver requirements, …)8.1. They are not required in the spec, may want to have some customer guarantees. Could

require/recommend get/set functions

9. Part of answer why they don't use IVI is that they are based in the past still (old instruments, old platform, …). Funding, bid structure, lead to not being able to incorporate new technology.

10. Long term support -- are old shared components kept around when OS rolls? May need to be public.


10.1. The need to install multiple pieces of software is a concern. Makes them uncomfortable because they have to get from different places.

10.2. Potential versionitis problems (but we’re not sure we heard that).11. One customer related “IVI worked well when….” Doing complex operations that can be distilled into

one step. Example was taking a file from one instrument and sending to another.

1. We didn't hear:1.1. a big concern about the requirement for the Configuration store infrastructure and any other

IVI infrastructure components.1.2. Non-Windows support mentioned, but seemed to be acceptable1.3. Complaints about performance (other than the error query not being turned off)1.4. No infrastructure technology objections (mostly C users)1.5.

Discussion What do we need to do?

- Meet the need of the developers in fact. There is some danger that based on the experience they will still not be satisfied (or change their assessment).

- Relationship with ATS framework team:o DISR (DoD IT Standards Registry) – the document that sets the standards and

technologies the DoD is using. o Chris has acted as a go-between ATS group and IVI.

Next StepsThe following are the ‘Next Steps’ we left the Florida meeting with:

IVI use the time scheduled next week to construct a reasonable response to ATS framework owners for each item. Realizing answer might not be completely satisfying (e.g., talk to your vendor), but think about what IVI could/should do.

Send a tentative list of actions in writing by end of February. Ion and Chris work with ATS Framework group to respond. IVI would expect a response to

the IVI Foundation (either requesting more action, or firm commitment).


Request actions move from tentative to real :)

Brainstorm and rough prioritization of Solutions

DocumentationActions for the Consortium1. Specify guidelines / requirement for IVI+, along with some validation.

a. 3 - Ranges document legal values for parametersb. 6 - Examplesc. 9 - SCPI to API element mappingd. Firmware revision(s)e. 1 - Attribute to config function mappingf. 9 - Common boilerplate for all drivers (something proided by consortium for getting

started, and not specific to a indiviudal driver). How to find things in IVI drivers (how to use attributes, config functions, etc).

g. Some resolution to the sequencing problemh. General issue of the depth of the programming guide – establish some requirement

about the level of detail of documentatino for attributes and functions2. 6 - Investigate a standard approach for flattening out a CHM file into some document format

that is easily searchable.3. 2 - IVI Foundation can come up with some class example code.4.

Education

1. 1 - Figure out how the GSG is, enhance it, direct people to it Getting Started Guide or create an alternative to the GSG that would augment the information on the web site.

2. 3 - Create a webinar or video based on the slides we did for DoD (could do a webinar series), may have supplemental doc to go with it.

3. 13 - Could create a seminar and offer it as a consortium activity – perhaps in conjunction with consortium face-face meetings. Could play on Monday at Autotestcon. Material to be based on questions posed by users at meeting.

4. 1 - Prepare topical white papers (again, based on the questions posed here).5. 5 - Provide a question answering web site (“ask Bob”) IVI hotline. For customers and vendors.

Drivers are incomplete:


1. 1 - Create an IVI+ requirement that classes and class extension groups must be implemented to some minimum amount.

2. [EDUCATION] Communicate to customers that a lot of the functionality is in the attributes.3. [EDUCATION] Do a better job of documenting the directIO (for message based instruments)4. 11 - Require DirectIO (as IVI or IVI+ requirement) for message based instruments5. Document what implemented

a. 10 - Document what is not implemented in a driver (IVI+ requirement?). An explicit set of documentation of the capabilities of an instrument that is NOT implemented.

b. Previous + Create an IVI+ and set some concrete requirement for instrument coverage.c. Previous 2 + Provide some verification of the coverage to the consortium as part of

qualifying for IVI+.6. 1 - Document how to modify the source code of the driver. Including any required tools.

Drivers are buggy

1. IVI+ Program, where you have to pay for testing2. 1 - IVI+ program where the vendor submits test results to qualify3. 4 - Class based testing by the consortium4. 6 - Good web site for reporting bugs with monitored response5. 7 - IVI+ checkmark on IVI web site driver registration that the consortium will revoke based on

verified customer complaint going x months without response. Might just be based on the vendor declaring what they are doing to remedy the problem. Could require the customer submit the problem.

6. 2 - Testing guidelines7. 2 - IVI+ could require the firmware versions be included in conformance documentation.

Developer could declare the version they developed and claim support for.8. Could clean the database of registered drivers on the website. There are old bad drivers

registerred. Could e-mail the vendors and ask them to verify version etc.9. Consortium could more aggresively identify drivers that claim IVI and are not and get them to

not use the name.

*** We would like to know how popular the IVI registration page is. Joe remind Bob to fetch data.

Source Code

1. Require source code (IVI+?) for message based instrument drivers. Require rebuildable.2. Require tidy source code for message based instrument drivers. Require rebuildable.


Attributes

1. Require that instrument state configuration parameter have corresponding attributes (IVI+).2. Consider requiring IVI-C driver provide get/set attribute functions for all attributes.

Old nasty drivers out there

1. None of them are IVI+, rely on that.2. Provide a way to collect customer complaints on drivers and remove it.

Shared Components

1. Need to clarify that we are as committed to them as we are the VISA drivers. 2. We can commit to making old versions customer-visible.

Summary of Favored Solutions1. Documentation

a. Summary: Test system developers find the documentation provided with IVI drivers to be weak. Some of the most notable issues are:

i. Lack of programming examplesii. Something that shows the order of operation to setup the instrument for

specific configurations.iii. Inadequate documentation of how the IVI API translates into the instrument

operation. That is, would like to have the same level of rich documentation that an instrument includes in the SCPI manual.

iv. Need to know what revision of firmware the driver has been validated with.b. Proposed mitigation:

i. (9) Require that driver for message based instruments document the SCPI commands (may be one or more) that are associated with each API element.

ii. (9) Require that drivers provide an overview of how to use drivers and their common capabilities based on consortium provided boilerplate as part of the driver documentation (this would include use of config functions, attributes, and other aspects). This would be very terse, plain text material.

iii. (6) Require that drivers provide a minimum set of examples. Examples either for each API element or examples for common operations.

iv. (6) Require that driver provide some improved format for help files that is easily searchable.

2. Educationa. Summary: There are numerous capabilities and caveats associated with IVI drivers that

test system programmers are generally unaware of. This results in unpleasant experiences when working with the drivers.


Key areas we identified for education are:i. Working with IVI-style drivers. General driver conventions for parameters,

functions, interfaces,etc.ii. Using pass-through functions to call SCPI from a driver

iii. When to use SCPI vs. a driver, and the differences between IVI drivers types and VXIplug&play drivers.

iv. How IVI attributes and config functions work together and provide both fine-grained and high-level instrument control.

v. Availability of driver source code and how to use it. Also include something on the complexity to expect from IVI features.

vi. What to expect for support of a driver (and who to call)vii. Using IVI drivers for debug (with detailed error tracking) versus for high-speed

operation. Including how to use various tracing utilities to trace both the driver operations and the underlying IO operations while the driver is running.

viii. How to use class drivers, and how to access instrument specific functions using the different IVI driver styles.

ix. How to use specific IVI features such as coercion recording, simulation, etc.b. Proposed Mitigation:

i. (13) The consortium investigate creating a seminar, to initially be delivered by the technical experts in the consortium, to address the various education issues identified. We anticipate initially delivering this material as an AutoTestcon pre-session, and at selected venues starting in Fall 2012. If well-received, we expect that the material would be targetted to other media such as webinars and downloadable videos.

ii. (5) Provide a web forum where driver users can ask questions that are answered by driver providers and other users.

3. Drivers are incompletea. Summary: Test system developers are wary of drivers because they have run into dead-

ends using them because necessary functions were not supported by the driver.b. Mitigation:

i. (11) Require that drivers include a common mechanism for sending SCPI commands to message based instruments that can be used if a driver function does not do what is required.

ii. (10) Require that drivers include a list of functions that are NOT implemented in the documentation.

4. Drivers are buggya. Summary: There are some drivers that are just plain buggy. This is not true of all drivers,

but it is difficult for a test system designer to know what to count on.IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

b. Mitigation:i. (7) Add a field to the IVI consortium driver registration page that indicates if a

driver complies with the new requirements defined here (IVI+). Further, provide a way for customers to submit problem reports on this website. If a driver vendor does not respond to the problem report in a timely manner, the driver will be marked as not complying with these requirements.

ii. (4) The consortium could offer and require some basic testing of drivers, notably class based testing (although basic common functions could be tested for drivers that don’t implement classes).

5. Source codea. Summary: Although we believe most IVI drivers include source code, there is a

perception that it is missing. Some of this needs to be addressed with the education efforts.

b. Mitigation:i. (*) Require that drivers for message based instruments provide buildable source

code. Source code should be readable, but we’re not sure how to enforce that.6. Attributes

a. Summary: The IVI design relies heavily on attributes and configure functions. The attributes provide fine-grained control. Apparently some drivers provide configure functions without associating the parameters with attributes to enable that control

b. Mitigation: i. (*) Drivers require that all instrument state parameters available in high level

configuration function parameters have corresponding attributes.

7. There are old poorly behaved driver out therea. Summary: During the early years of the spec, several drivers were released that are not

consistent with the current practice, including quality and features. Test system designers have no way of knowing if a given driver is a full featured quality driver or one of the early drivers.

b. Mitigation:i. (*) Create new quality standards that set a higher bar, as defined here so

customers can identify well-behaved drivers. We would like to do this for all existing drivers as well, but the fact that they are already available, and the fact that it is difficult to change the requirements in the standard retroactively suggest that a new classification would be more helpful.

8. Long term support of the shared componentsa. Summary: Some test system designers have expressed a concern about the fact that IVI

drivers require an associated set of common components provided by the foundation. IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

The concern includes the commitment of the vendors to keep the shared components current and whether the customer has the ability to acquire old versions.

b. Mitigation:i. (*) Customers need to realize that the vendors are as committed to these

components as they are to their VISA library. So, using a driver with IVI Shared components is no worse than using SCPI with VISA.

ii. (*) The consortium retains all versions of the shared components and is willing to make them available for users to download; the old components are currently only available to consortium members.


Best opportunities amongst “Favored Solutions”

1. Documentationa. [X] (9) Require that driver for message based instruments document the SCPI

commands The group see’s this as easy and a no-brainer. Will be done, no work seems to be necessary for June meeting.

b. [4] (9) Require that drivers provide an overview based on consortium provided boilerplateNI will draft some boilerplate for IVI-C. Could be leveraged to COM and .NET.

What’s in the boilerplate? What concrete requirement to be place on drivers

c. [3] (6) Require that drivers provide a minimum set of examples. Challenge is to create a meaningful requirement we could track compliance to.No action at this time (not enough support for this action so will likely drop).

d. [0] (6) Require that driver provide some improved format for help files that is easily searchable.NI will look into doing this for its drivers. No other action at this time.

2. Educationa. [7] (13) The consortium create a seminar, to initially be delivered by the technical

experts Joe, Kirk will work on a plan and invite Adri and marketing committee at large.

Create an outline -- needs to be material based on what we heard Start with list of questions in this document we captured from ATS mtg

Look at existing material – what do we have already? Rough out a schedule of what we can do by when Determine if Autotestcon 2012 is practical (Adri looking into Autotestcon in

general)

b. [3] (5) Provide a web forum where driver users can ask questions that are answeredKirk, Vesna will draft a plan. (NI and TMW would participate in the forum, but may not participate in this elaboration).


How do we seed interest – generate initial traffix What technology would we use for the forum? What costs would be involved in hosting? How would we ensure minimal response rate to posted questions. And from

whom.

3. Drivers are incompletea. [X] (11) Require that drivers include a common mechanism for sending SCPI commands

Kirk, John H, Vesna Need to create a plan that will: Outline how we do this for IVI .NET, IVI-COM and IVI-C Outline the functionality that will be required from each driver Estimate the work Identify the specs that are impacted (this will be a general issue given the

amorphous concept of IVI+).

b. [3] (10) Require that drivers include a list of NOT implemented functions in the documentation.Kirk and Vesna and John H will work on a plan.

Need to define exactly what this means. How it will be presented (e.g., the help page we would generate).

4. Drivers are buggya. [0] (7) Add a field to registration page that indicates if a driver complies with new

requirements (IVI+). IVI will provide a web site for reporting bugs which monitors the response of the driver vendors.Nothing required at this time.

b. [3] (4) The consortium could offer and require some basic testing of driversJoe will elaborate what this might look like.

5. Source codea. [X] (*) Require that drivers for message based instruments provide buildable source

code.Kirk and Santanu

Need to elaborate what ‘buildable means’ (what environment). We believe this means it is buildable somewhere, has instructions, … need to elaborate based on these boundary conditions.


6. Attributesa. [X] (*) Drivers require that all instrument state parameters available in high level

configuration function parameters have corresponding attributesJohn H, Vesna

Need to determine where to touch the spec Look at the class specs and ensure that classes comply What exception should be allowed such as current/voltage in a power supply,

start/stop sweep etc.7. There are old poorly behaved driver out there

a. [X] Define a higher bar Joe Questions to answer:

How do we add the new requirements to existing specs without causing confusion.

Are there things above that should be applied to everything? If so which? How would we designate compliance with the new requirements What do we do about enforcing How do drivers claim compliance to the new capability (what is the moniker). To what extent do we denegrate drivers that do not comply? And raise up

drivers that do.

b. [] Designate a moniker for compliance with the higher bar as defined here (IVI+)8. Long term support of the shared components

a. [X] (*) Customers need to realize that the vendors are as committed b. [X] (*) Make old versions available

No action at this time.

Meet monthly to review overall progress.

7 AM Pacific, 8 Mountain, 9 Central, 16:00 CET, 23:00 Singapore

1 Wednesday of the month. (March 7 for first meeting).

Joe send out detailed meeting information.


Summary of work committeda. Require drivers for message based instruments document the SCPI commands (this was

item 1a in the notes)b. OWNER: Nonec. STATUS: Fully defined, no work necessary before June meeting

d. Education (this was item 2a in the notes)e. OWNERS: Joe and Kirkf. ACTION:

i. Share plan with Adri and marketing committeeii. Create an outline --

1. needs to be material based on what we heard2. Start with list of questions in this document we captured from ATS mtg

iii. Look at existing material – what do we have already?iv. Rough out a schedule of what we can do by whenv. Determine if Autotestcon 2012 is practical (Adri looking into Autotestcon in

general)

g. Require that drivers include a common mechanism for sending SCPI commands (item 3a in the notes)

h. OWNERS: Kirk, John H, Vesnai. ACTION:

i. Outline requirement for IVI .NET, IVI-COM and IVI-Cii. Outline the functionality required from each driver

iii. Estimate the workiv. Identify the specs that will be impacted

j. Require that drivers for message based instruments provide buildable source code.k. OWNERS: Kirk and Santanul. ACTION:

i. Elaborate on what buildable means (e.g., what environment). We think it means buildable somewhere, has instructions, … need to elaborate on these basic conditions.

m. Require that drivers instrument state parameters that are available in high level configuration function parameters have corresponding attributes

n. OWNERS: John H and Vesnai. Need to determine where to touch the spec

ii. Look at the class specs and ensure that classes complyiii. What exception should be allowed such as current/voltage in a power supply,

start/stop sweep etc.IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

o. Need to define a higher bar for driver qualityp. OWNER: Joe

i. How do we add the new requirements to existing specs without causing confusion?

ii. Are there things above that should be applied to everything? If so which?iii. How would we designate compliance with the new requirementsiv. What do we do about enforcingv. How do drivers claim compliance to the new capability (what is the moniker).

vi. To what extent do we denigrate drivers that do not comply and raise up drivers that do?

q. Draft an e-mail to the ATS Framework Committeer. OWNER: Jon and Joe

i. Outline:1. Introduction2. What we heard

a. Specific list of concerns summarized above3. Clarification of the consortium position

a. How we see SCPI,VXIplug&play and IVI relating4. What the consortium is considering

a. Notion of IVI+b. Top N mitigations

5. Request for response before we undertake thesea. Other things we have considered we could do.

6. Not trying to discourage SCPI use where it is best alternative

Outline of Response to ATS Framework Committee (sp?)

Joe and Jon to draft an e-mail along these lines to the ATS folks:

I. IntroductionII. What we heard

a. Specific list of concerns summarized aboveIVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

III. Clarification of the consortium positiona. How we see SCPI,VXIplug&play and IVI relating

IV. What the consortium is considering a. Notion of IVI+b. Top N mitigations

V. Request for response before we undertake thesea. Other things we have considered we could do.b. Not trying to discourage SCPI use where it is best alternativec.

Chapter 7 Technical Committee


Location: Orange, CA

Chairperson: Jon Bellin

Minutes Prepared By: Vesna Jadric

Topics To Be Discussed:

Review Agenda Review Voting Members In Attendance Patent Call Approve minutes from the October 2011 Technical Committee Meeting Review outcome of recent eVotes, IPR Declarations, Editorial Changes, and Reviews Review Action Items from Previous Meeting Review Spec Status Document Working Group Topics

Vote on IviFgen 5.0 specification Vote on IviDigitizer 2.2 specification Vote on IVI-3.17 specification Vote on IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 specifications Editorial change to IVI-3.1 specification


Editorial change to IviFgen specification Discuss IVI DoD ATS Feedback New Business

Discuss adding support for FFT-based spectrum analyzers in the IviSpecAn class specification Discuss Upcoming Meetings New Action Items

Voting Members In Attendance

Present Organization Name Name

Aeroflex Corporation Mark Meldrum

X Agilent Technologies Joe Mueller

Bustec Ltd. Fred Bloennigen

DRS-SSI Don Essner

EADS North America Test & Services Fran Bennett / Chris Gorringe

X Keithley Instruments John Ryland

MathWorks Rob Purser / Vinod Cherian

X National Instruments Jon Bellin

X Pacific MindWorks, Inc. Kirk Fertitta / Mike Woodring

Rockwell Collins Jason Schares

X Rohde & Schwarz Jochen Wolle

X Tektronix Santanu Pradhan

X Teradyne, Inc. Teresa Lopes

VTI Instruments Sangram Gaikwad

There are 7 voting members in attendance, which satisfies the requirements for a quorum of 4 Voting Members. (Quorum is 25% of Voting Members. There are currently 14 Voting Members.)

Note: Vinod Cherian attended but after the voting was completed.


Patent CallPlease be aware that this meeting is being held under the Intellectual Property Rights policy adopted by IVI Foundation. If you do not have a copy of this policy, please see me during this meeting. You may also view and download a copy of that policy at the Organization>>Legal Documents section of the Consortium website.

At this time, I would ask that anyone in attendance inform me if they are personally aware of any claims under any patent applications or issued patents that would be likely to be infringed by an implementation of the specification or other work product that is the subject of this meeting. You need not be the inventor of such patent or patent application in order to inform us of its existence, nor will you be held responsible for expressing a belief that turns out to be inaccurate.

Approve minutes from the October 2011 Technical Committee MeetingThe minutes from the October 2011 Technical Committee Meeting are posted on the IVI Foundation web site.

No issues were brought up with the minutes. The minutes are accepted.

Review outcome of recent IPR Declarations, eVotes, and Reviews

IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.0 ReleaseOn October 24th, Kirk Fertitta sent out the following email regarding the release of the IVI.NET Shared Components version 1.0.0.

From: Kirk Fertitta <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Date: 10/24/2011 02:23 PM

Subject: IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.0 available on public website


The IVI Foundation review of the IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.0 concluded on October 21 st, 2011 with no issues reported. These components have now been released for public use on the IVI Foundation website at the following URL:

http://www.ivifoundation.org/shared_components/Default.aspx

Thank you all for your participation in this work.

Kirk Fertitta

Chief Technical Officer

Pacific MindWorks, Inc.

Ph: 858-521-1382 x237

Fax: 858-521-1385

IVI Data Conversion IPR Declaration

The IPR Declaration for the IviFgen 5.0 Specification concluded on December 1, 2011. The results are listed below.

CompanyVoting Member Representative

Option 3B Option 3COption 3A

Aeroflex Mark Meldrum x

Agilent Joe Mueller x

Bustec Ltd. Fred Bloennigen x

DRS Sustainment Systems Don Essner x


http://www.ivifoundation.org/shared_components/Default.aspx

EADS North America Test & Services Dan Masters

Keithley Instruments John Ryland x

MathWorks Rob Purser x

National Instruments Jon Bellin x

Pacific MindWorks, Inc. Kirk Fertitta x

Pacific Power Source Eric Lord x


Rohde & Schwarz Jochen Wolle x

Tektronix Santanu Pradhan

Teradyne Teresa Lopes x

VTI Instruments Sangram Gaikwad

IviDigitizer 2.2 Minor Changes

On December 19th, Yves Maumary announced the end of the review period for IVI-4.15: IviDigitizer 2.2 minor changes via the email below

From: <[email protected]>


Date: 12/19/2011 05:23 PM

Subject: End of Minor Specification Change Review: IVI-4.15 IviDigitizer 2.2

Greetings:

The review period for the IVI-4.15 IviDigitizer Rev 2.2 minor specification changes has ended without objections.

Best regards,

Yves Maumary


Agilent Technologies

Phone +41 (0)22 884 3221

The review period for the IVI-4.15: IviDigitizer minor change has ended without objections.

IVI-3.17 Minor Changes

On January 13th, Vesna Jadric announced IVI-3.17 minor changes via the email below



Date: 01/13/2012 04:30 PM

Subject: Minor Change: IVI-3.17: Installation Requirements Specification (21-day review)

Greetings:

NI was tasked with updating the IVI-3.17: Installation Requirements specification to specify the file formats and file names for the IVI Shared Components installer. The change document and updated specification are now posted on the internal members page:

IVI-3.17: Installation Requirements Specification Change Document

The review period for this minor change is January 13 - February 3, 2012.

Please contact me with any feedback.

Thanks and best regards,

Vesna JadricInstrument Drivers/IVI | National Instruments | 512-683-5360

The review period for the IVI-3.17 minor change has ended without objections.


http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/IVI-3.17%20Proposed%20Change%20-%20ISC%20Installer%20Files.docx

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/IVI-3.17_Installation_Draft_2012-01-13.docx

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/Default.aspx

IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 Minor Changes

On January 19th, Vesna Jadric announced IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 minor changes via the email below



Date: 01/19/2012 02:54 PM

Subject: Minor Change: IVI-3.1: Driver Architecture Specification and IVI-3.5: Configuration Server Specification (21-day review)

Greetings:

NI was tasked with updating the IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 specifications to remove ambiguity between physical and virtual names. The change document and updated specifications are now posted on the internal members page:

IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 Proposed Changes - Ambiguity between physical and virtual names .docx

IVI-3.1_Architecture_2012-01-18.doc IVI-3.5_ConfigurationServer_2012-01-18.doc

The review period for this minor change is January 19 - February 10, 2012.

Please contact me with any feedback.

Best regards,

Vesna JadricInstrument Drivers/IVI | National Instruments | 512-683-5360

The review period for the IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 minor changes has ended without objections.

IVI.NET Shared Components UpdateOn January 31st, Kirk Fertitta sent out the following email regarding the update of the IVI.NET Shared Components (version 1.0.1).


http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/IVI-3.5_ConfigurationServer_2012-01-18.doc

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/IVI-3.1_Architecture_2012-01-18.doc

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/IVI-3.1%20and%20IVI-3.5%20Proposed%20Changes%20-%20Ambiguity%20between%20physical%20and%20virtual%20names%20.docx

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/IviDriverArchitecturev3_1/Default.aspx

From: Kirk Fertitta <[email protected]>


Date: 01/31/2012 03:56 PM

Subject: IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.1 review

IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.1 is currently under review. The review will continue until February 13, 2012.

This version of the IVI.NET Shared Components removes the compiler "obsolete" warning from all assemblies. Also, this version fixes an issue with the List property in the IviSwtch assembly.

Download IVI.NET Shared Components 1.0.1 at the following URL:

http://www.ivifoundation.org/membership/committees/SharedComponentLifecycle/Default.aspx

Kirk Fertitta

Chief Technical Officer

Pacific MindWorks, Inc.

Ph: 858-521-1382 x237

Fax: 858-521-1385

A few issues were reported relating to type and member names. The review period will continue until February 27, 2012.




Review Action Items from October 2011 MeetingOwner Action Item Status

Vesna Jadric Add Resolutions to the In Progress tab of the Lifecycle Status spreadsheet.

[10/20/2011] Complete

Vesna Jadric Schedule weekly meetings to discuss IVI deficiencies (reported by DoD ATS)

[10/25/2011] Complete

Dan Mondrik Propose text to be added to the VISA spec for formatted I/O

[01/27/2012] Complete

Review Spec Status DocumentThe group reviewed and edited the Spec Status Document.

Working Group Topics

Vote on the IviFgen version 5.0 Specification

The Data Conversion WG added Arbitrary Waveform extensions in the IviFgen specification.

The review period for this major change has ended without objections on December 1, 2011.

Resolution (2012-02-17: #1): Joe Mueller moves that the IVI Foundation approve the IviFgen 5.0 Specification. Seconded by Kirk Fertitta.

5 YES votes. 0 NO votes. 1 Not voting. The resolution is approved.


Vote on the IviDigitizer version 2.2 Specification

The following 2 minor changes were made in the IviDigitizer specification:

Addition of a new IVI-C only Configure Active Trigger Source function to avoid the mandatory use of SetAttribute with the ATTR_ACTIVE_TRIGGER_SOURCE attribute

Addition of new enum values for the Oscillator Reference Source attribute

The review period for these minor changes has ended without objections on December 19, 2011.

Resolution (2012-02-17: #2): Joe Mueller moves that the IVI Foundation approve the IviDigitizer 2.2 Specification. Seconded by Kirk Fertitta.

6 YES votes. 0 NO votes. The resolution is approved.

Vote on the IVI-3.17: Installation Requirements Specification

The IVI-3.17 specification was modified to specify the file formats and file names of distributables for the IVI Shared Components installer.

The review period for this minor change has ended without objections on February 3, 2012.

Resolution (2012-02-17: #3): Kirk Fertitta moves that the IVI Foundation approve the minor changes to the IVI-3.17 specification. Seconded by Joe Mueller.


Vote on the IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 Specifications


The IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 specifications were modified to address the possibility of ambiguity between physical and virtual names.

The review period for this minor change has ended without objections on February 10, 2012.

Resolution (2012-02-17: #4): Joe Mueller moves that the IVI Foundation approve the minor changes to the IVI-3.1 and IVI-3.5 specifications. Seconded by Jochen Wolle.


Editorial Change to IVI-3.1 Specification

Jon Bellin suggested that we make the following editorial change to IVI-3.1, Section 4.1.2:

Remove asterisks from Table 4.1 as they indicate that NI doesn’t have 64-bit versions of LabVIEW and LabWindows/CVI.

Action Item: Vesna Jadric to run Editorial change process for IVI-3.1

Editorial Change to IviFgen Specification

John Harvey suggested that we make the following editorial changes to IVI-4.3:

Correct the C constant name in section 21.2.1 Add missing COM interface GUIDs in Table 33-4 Update the Arbitrary.Waveform.SampleRate property to

Arbitrary.SampleRate in section 6.3.3 Update the Trigger.Rate property to Trigger.InternalRate in section 15.3.1


Action Item: John Harvey to run Editorial change process for IVI-4.3

IVI DoD ATS Feedback

Sub-group of the IVI Foundation met with the DoD representatives and are currently discussing an appropriate response and appropriate actions.

New Business

Request for adding support for FFT-based spectrum analyzers to the IviSpecAn class specification

Ross Binkley, Software Engineer at Research Electronics, Intl, submitted a request to IVI Foundation to add support for FFT-based spectrum analyzers to the IviSpecAn class specification.

Evan Cone from National Instruments currently owns the spec. Here is his assessment of what would be involved:

1. It’s not too hard to emulate the swept spectrum behavior with an FFT-based analyzer, but it does require a few additional API parameters, and a few of the existing IviSpecAn settings don't make sense for an FFT-based analyzer.

2. The majority of new spectrum analyzers produced today are FFT-based. The top selling spectrum analyzers support a swept mode and an FFT mode, as well as a VSA mode. Most FFT-based spectrum analyzers also have VSA functionality.

3. If there was an effort to create an FFT-based analyzer IVI specification, I think we could get away with doing it as an extension to the existing IviSpecAn spec. There are only a few base attributes that wouldn't be relevant, and most of the extension groups probably still make sense. Prototyping work would be significant. However, given that most FFT-based spectrum analyzers also have VSA functionality, another approach would be to combine the FFT-based IviSpecAn and a VSA class specification. The VSA probably would NOT be an extension to the existing IviSpecAn, so another option would be to create a new VSA class specification with an FFT spectrum analyzer extension (or


vice-versa). This second option would be an extensive effort, and I only suggest it if we think we may have to do a VSA class specification in the future.

There was consensus to add an FFT extension to SpecAn class. Kirk Fertitta warned that this approach would require that an FFT analyzer be able to emulate all the swept analyzer base capabilities.

No one volunteered to lead the effort. If Ross Binkley wants to join the IVI Foundation, he could lead the work on the IviSpecAn FFT extensions.

1.11.2 Update on SharePoint

Kirk Fertitta stated that he had not completed his research into using SharePoint as a document repository for working groups. He still plans to show a demo of a prototype at the next face-to-face meeting.

Discuss Upcoming MeetingsThe next meeting will be June 18-20 (Monday - Wednesday) in Munich.

Working Group Time

DoD ATS Feedback (possibly parallel tracks) 1 day

Technical Committee Meeting and BoD 3 hr

Marketing Committee General ¼ day

Shared Components Management 1 hr

VISA 0 day

VISA.NET and IVI.NET 1 day

File Format ½ day

File Format meeting can conflict with VISA.NET meeting. DoD ATS Feedback cannot overlap with other tracks and should be contiguous with the day of the marketing meeting.


Criteria for IVI meeting locations (from Feb 2010 TC meeting minutes):

For US meetings:

Major airport hub that allows most members a non-stop flight (examples: Denver, Dallas, Orlando, Las Vegas, Chicago, St Louis, Los Angeles, Atlanta)

Hotel journey is 20 minutes on Google maps. Sleeping room price should target $100 but not exceed $130. Willing to go higher on sleeping

room price if it is walking distance to restaurants and avoids rental car. Internet bundled into the cost.

Meetings in 2012:

October 10-12, 2012 – Boston

Summary of Action Items Created at the February 2012 Technical Committee Meeting

Owner Action Item Status

Vesna Jadric Run Editorial change process for IVI-3.1

John Harvey Run Editorial change process for IVI-4.3

Adjourn

Meeting Adjourned.


Chapter 8 IVI BoD Meeting Feb 17, 2012

Called to order at: 9:38 PAC

Directors in attendance

Present Director Company

Rob Purser MathWorks

Kirk Fertitta Pacific MindWorks, Inc.

Teresa Lopes Teradyne

John Ryland Keithley

Santanu Pradham Tektronix

Joe Mueller Agilent Technologies

Jon Bellin National Instruments

Jochen Wolle Rohde & Schwarz

Quorum is a majority of directors. 8/8 satisfies the requirement.

Agenda Review

IVI BOD MEETING FEB 17, 2012


1. DIRECTORS IN ATTENDANCE

2. AGENDA REVIEW

3. REMINDER OF THE IP POLICY, ANTI-TRUST, AND DUTY OF TRUST OF DIRECTORS

4. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS SINCE LAST MEETING

5. INPUTS REGARDING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

5.1 ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

7. BOD SUB COMMITTEES

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

9. WEB SITE

10. FINANCIAL REPORT

11. DISCUSS MARKETING COMMITTEE BUDGET

Reminder of the IP Policy, Anti-trust, and Duty of Trust of Directors

The IVI Foundation has an IP policy that could require that some of your corporations’ IP be licensed to the IVI Foundation and its members at no cost. Every participant in the IVI meetings should be familiar with the obligations that participation in the standard incurs on your company.

Every member of the consortium is encouraged to familiarize themselves with legal requirements regarding anti-trust violations. Members need to be cautious and refrain from discussing markets and pricing.

Directors have a duty to the IVI Foundation. They are legally and ethically obligated to do the “right thing” for the IVI Foundation since they serve as a principal of that organization, if this conflicts with other responsibilities such as their duty to their employer, they need to take appropriate actions to resolve the conflict of interest.

Resolutions passed by electronic means since last meeting


No motions were passed by the Board of Directors since the last face-face meeting:

Inputs Regarding Minutes of Previous MeetingNone expressed

Action Items from Previous Meeting

ITEM OWNER UPDATE

Election of officersOffice Serving in 2011 Nominees for 2012

President Joe Mueller Joe Mueller

Treasurer Jon Bellin Jon Bellin

Secretary Jochen Wolle Jochen Wolle

Chair Technical Committee Jon Bellin Jon Bellin

Chair Marketing Committee Adri Kruger Adri Kruger

Kirk moved that we nominate the same slate of directors that served in 2011 for 2012.

Teresa seconded

Motion passed Yes7: No 0: Abstain 0


BoD Sub Committees

Sub Committees of BoD Serving in 2011 Nominated for 2012

Legal Committee (not created, BoD as needed)

Marketing Committee Adri Kruger (Chair) Adri Kruger (Chair)

Rob Purser Rob Purser

Jochen Wolle Jochen Wolle

Kirk Fertitta Kirk Fertitta

Deb Homan Deb Homan

Bob Helsel Bob Helsel

Operating Procedures (not created, BoD as needed)

Jon moved that the same people be nominated for 2012.

Vinod seconded the motionIVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

MSC 7:0:0

Recommendations from Technical CommitteeThe technical committee is recommending spec updates as follows:

1. IVI FGen 5.0 specification which adds arbitrary waveform capabilities to the specification.2. IVI Digitizer Version 2.2 Specification which adds configure active trigger function and new enum

values for the oscillator reference source3. IVI 3.17 Installation requirements modified to specify file formats and file names of distributable

for the IVI Shared Components installer.4. IVI 3.1 and 3.5 changes to address the potential ambiguity between physical andvirtual names.

Voted unanimously to accept the TC recommendation and confirm these spec changes.

Financial Report

Discussion:

- Facilities have been good, although the meeting fee’s are a little higher than they used to be.- Marketing expenses have been light in recent years so the foundation savings are a little higher.

Should consider using some of those funds as part of the DoD/ATS Framework response.


Motion to Adjourn from Kirk, seconded by Jon

MSC 7:0:0

Chapter 9 Annual Membership MeetingFeb 17, 2011

Called to order: 9:30

Review voting members in attendance, introductions

Voting Members in Attendance (establish quorum and voting representatives in attendance):

Company Representative Present

Aeroflex Corporation Marv Rozner


Bustec Torsten Rissel

DRS Sustainment Systems, inc Don Essner

EADS NA Test & Services Dan Masters

Keithley Instruments John Ryland X

MathWorks Vinod Cherian X

Pacific MindWorks, Inc. Kirk Fertitta X


Tektronix Santanu Pradham X

Teradyne Teresa Lopes X

VTI Instruments Sangram Gaikwad (Tom Sarfi)

Company Representative Present

Agilent Technologies Spon Joe Mueller X

National Instruments Spon Jon Bellin X

Rohde & Schwarz Spon Jochen Wolle X

Note: Quorum is 25% of voting membership or 2, whichever is greater (By-Laws section 3.6). Based on 14 voting members, a quorum is 4.

8/14 Present 2012-02-17 satisfies quorum.

Review Agenda

ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING_____________________________________________________1

1. REVIEW VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE, INTRODUCTIONS__________________1IVI Foundation Meeting Minutes Oct. 2011

2. REVIEW AGENDA________________________________________________________________1

3. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING_______________________________________2

4. CIRCULATE MEMBERSHIP ROSTER TO BE CORRECTED BY MEMBERS____________2

5. CREATE SLATE OF GENERAL DIRECTORS REPRESENTING GENERAL MEMBERSHIP..........2

6. IDENTIFY SPONSOR DIRECTORS AS ELECTED BY SPONSOR MEMBERS____________3

7. NEW BUSINESS__________________________________________________________________3

Review minutes of previous meetingNo concerns expressed

Circulate membership roster to be corrected by membersThe file was scrutinized by members present. Some changes in contact information were made, but the membership list is correct.

Create slate of general directors representing general membershipThere are 11 General-level members in the IVI Foundation, Inc., of whom, 5 are in attendance. Being more than 25% of the total membership that class, this constitutes a quorum.

NOTE FROM BY-LAWS 4.3c: “… Notwithstanding anything in these By-laws to the contrary, at the discretion of the Board, no Member shall be eligible to nominate or elect a Director if such Member’s representative to the Board of Directors failed to attend a majority of the meetings of the Board in the previous year….”

Company Representative Able To Serve

Aeroflex Corporation Marv Rozner

Bustec Torsten Rissel


DRS Sustainment Systems, inc Don Essner

EADS NA Test & Services Dan Masters

Keithley Instruments John Ryland X

MathWorks Vinod Cherian X

Pacific MindWorks, Inc. Kirk Fertitta X


Tektronix Santanu Pradham X

Teradyne Teresa Lopes X

VTI Instruments Sangram Gaikwad (Tom Sarfi)

14 total general members. As a class, General Members are permitted to nominate 5 directors.

Kirk Fertitta moves to nominate the 5 members listed in attendance above (John Ryland, Rob Purser, Kirk Fertitta, Santanu Pradham, Teresa Lopes).

Seconded: Teresa Lopes

Resolution passes: YES 5, No 0, Abstain 0

Identify Sponsor Directors as elected by Sponsor Members


The following directors were elected by their representative companies.

Company Representative

Agilent Technologies Joe Mueller

National Instruments Jon Bellin

Rohde & Schwarz Jochen Wolle

New BusinessNone

Adjourned
