Date: Wed Oct 17 2007 - 14:51:53 PDT
Dennis: Concerning your third point *International Standards.* *Currently* EDIF Version 3 0 0 is IEC/EN 61690-1, and EDIF Version 4 0 0 is IEC/EN 61690-2 They are also ANSI and European (EN) standards. It is true that since the release of EDIF 4 0 0, the entire EDIF standards organisation has essentially dissolved. There have been no meetings of any of the technical subcommittees, the EDIF Experts group, etc. Also true is that *STEP-AP210*, a part of ISO 10303 standard practically inherited all of the EDIF 4 0 0 functionality except for schematics. A real customers view on STEP is reflected in an interesting (2006 NIST Workshop) presentation by a Boeing fellow available at http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/imis/presentations /Smith.pdf Slide 11 of that might be relevant for both explaining vendors positions viewed from user's perspective, and the need for IP protection. All this to say that: 1. EDIF is a valid standard, 2. Even if it will not be re-newed it will continue to be available as an international standard (IEC does not remove older versions from the available library - as IEEE does). 3. Other international standards might be relevant (like AP210) Finally, Dennis, you are not the only one on this reflectors who were present at the past IEC meetings. I remember (and probably Ron remembers) the decision to let EDIF run, but I do not remember anything about *"decommissioning EDIF"* For those of you who care, the STEP AP210 support issues (outlined by Boeing Fellow) have more ramifications, and they might be at the root of the low participation of the EU countries in the IEC TC93. The good news is that the XML and other new technology is there to help. However, we in DASC are not using it at its fullest potential, but that's yet another topic. (I will follow up on this in another e-mail). Concerning *Corporate vs. Individual* ** Noting that "Corporate vs. Individual" could well be a chapter in a book by Karl Heinrich Marx :-), I realize that we not only never debated the kinds of group participation (which one is better, for what reasons, what are the drawbacks and for what reasons, etc.), but we did not even scrutinize the pilot groups we have already, like the 1800 (to see how well they serve the general DASC interests). In fact such analysis is hard to perform. That is because there are so many interests to be considered. There are corporate interests (and those are seldom split between EDA vendors and EDA tools users), there are individual interests, there are anti-trust laws and regulations, government keep-it-low-cost and enable-competition pressures, and there are pure technical merit and ( maybe :-( ) moral forces. If something is better from one point of view it might not be from another, so the best we can do (while we gather *sincerely reported and open* experimental data form the groups already there, and follow up on standards addoption) is to concentrate on *feasibility, usefulness, technical merit **and ease of adoption*. Also if a study group comes to a conclusion as of what kind of participation they want to organize, we should respect that collective decision, and if we want to influence it we should join them and discuss it at that level. A lateral conclusion here is that we need to *analyze closer * *our pilot organizational experiments.* I am glad to see scrutiny of the PAR proposals, and encourage others to join Dennis in analyzing and commenting. Enjoy the day, Alex Zamfirescu DASC Vice-Chair On 10/17/07, Brophy, Dennis <dennisb@model.com> wrote: > > Gary, > > > > I appreciate the depth of analysis and response to my questions, but I > think my points are much simpler than those you outlined below in your > response. I'll dial into the meeting and we can discuss this more. > > > > *1. Access to IP that will be the basis for a standard or recommended > practice that in included in a PAR* > > If I am to make a decision to approve a PAR that references the IP of > others, I need to have access to that information in compliance with IEEE > rules. Barring access to the information, the next best step would be for > you to remove the references to that IP from the PAR and ensure the scope > covers what would either be invented or contributed later. Since the whole > reason to start the project is to offer a path for VSIA to bring their work > forward, I would expect that the VSIA IP would be offered to us under IEEE > terms and conditions. If that is not the case, not only would I stand in > opposition to the project, I would appeal any actions that are being taken > outside IEEE rules. > > > > In case anyone wants to read this position as one to discourage IP of > others from coming into the IEEE, I want to make it clear that I encourage > all sources of IP and owners of it to engage with and work with the IEEE to > affect standards that are appropriate. However, when those works are > referenced in a PAR I must have access to them without any duty of keeping > information confidential and only respect the IEEE copyright > responsibilities. > > > > *2. Corporate v. Individual* > > I have found that the consumer/supplier relationship was not well > represented in the past when we made standards in the DASC. The corporate > program actually promotes better and healthier consumer/supplier discussion > on standards. I have also found that many elements of a standard would be > negotiated in leaving a supplier to invest in elements of a standard that a > market did not want. Why not have those discussions while the standard is > being developed? > > > > We can also have a funding discussion on what it takes to make the > standard. If you want to avoid that discussion you can go the Individual > route. But Mentor would not be inclined to donate money to the effort. I > think you will send a lot of time to end up with something that is > technically sound but the market could ignore. > > > > You seem to tie the two alternatives to an issue of cost and > participation. This is not an issue of fairness of votes. Both schemes are > fair. It is also not an issue of cost. The IEEE BoG that has several small > companies has set the fees to be sensitive to small companies. (By the way, > Booz Allen Hamilton turnover is about as big as the EDA industry I'm in. > Your whole augment that Booz Allen Hamilton has no money makes this > argument specious.) > > > > *3. International Standards* > > If you don't know at this time if you need to interact with international > standards bodies then please remove all references to EDIF in the PAR. EDIF > is an international standard. EDIF is also set to be decommissioned as a > standard. I am probably the only one on these reflectors that has been at > the meetings from 1997 on where EDIF has been discussed. EIA said it was > done with EDIF and it and its corporate backers would no longer fund work > after the completion of 4 0 0. They were happy to leave it for a 10-year > life cycle in IEC. In the WG3 meetings, I don't think we have discussed > EDIF since the Florence meeting in 2001. > > > > My question to the group would be: do we want to reference a standard that > will soon be decommissioned. I would not do that. Since corporate backers > have said they don't see a need for EDIF beyond the end of its current life, > I don't want to waste my resources on it. > > > > -Dennis > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Delp, Gary [mailto:Gary.Delp@lsi.com] > *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2007 6:21 AM > *To:* Brophy, Dennis; Victor Berman > *Cc:* stds-dasc@eda.org; Steven J. Dovich; ip-encrypt@eda.org; > vsiboard@lists.vsi.org > *Subject:* FW: Study Group has Approved the PAR for P1735, now looking for > feedback and potential approval from the DASC. > > > > For those of you additionally copied as part of the interest group of > P1735, this is a response that Steve Dovich and Gary Delp prepared to some > questions that Dennis Brophy raised on the draft PAR submitted to the DASC. > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > Thanks for bringing up these points, I think they all can be resolved > well. As I said in the earlier note, I think we just didn't provide enough > background in the PAR to cover the concerns. (We also put in a version of > the PAR that contained some key typos that may have started out your > evaluation on the wrong foot. We are talking about a recommended practice, > not a recommended proactive ) > > Let's make the base agreement that we want to work together and work > through the effective IEEE policy, and then pick the points that need to be > resolved. Steve Dovich and I worked together on preparing the response. > > > > I think the series of concerns you have are: > > - Corporate vs Individual organization > - The support for activities > - IEEE as a VSI Dumping ground > - Copyright transfer of material > - Openness of contributions > - Relationship between this work and 1800/1364 and 1076. (and EDIF) > - Exclusion of international consideration > > *Corporate/entity vs Individual organization* > > As I read your note, it seems as if you are tying the organization (entity > vs individual) into the level of support. While it does effect the level of > funding that goes into IEEE, the tight connection from corporate level of > support and choice of organization are not as clear to me as they may be to > you. If we need to make this an entity organization to work on a > recommendation, or to get approval, I expect that we can do this, but we > would need to talk it through. If there are not reasons for both types of > organizations, then maybe we should eliminate one of them. > > > > We did spend considerable time in the study group discussing the topic, > and while I initially had concerns with the individual route, Steve Dovich > made very good points on his preference on individual membership, and the > group agreed. The potential concerns are those of funding, fairness in > votes, and the ability for one company to dominate in an individual based > work group. I will take each of these in turn, if concerns remain, lets > bring them up and see how, with additional input, we can resolve them. > > > > The funding topic: as long as there is support for the activity (and there > is, see below) time, money and manpower can be brought to bear independent > of organization. (If you have specific additional concerns here, please > share them; I expect if you do, they should be general DASC concerns and > vetting them through the group will be valuable) > > > > Fairness in votes: There is pretty active contribution from a number of > individuals and companies, and participation is a key part of fairness. the > P&P's are put together such that a vigilant chair and vice chair can make > the group effective, and I would expect an appeal to the DASC to quickly > resolve any issues. This has worked in the past. More importunately, > steady participation from individuals rather than just companies means that > we have technical expertise and continuity of thought in votes. (I think > this is true, and important in both entity and individual working groups). > > > > When the balloting group is formed, there is a requirement on the WG > leadership to ensure that the balloting group includes all stakeholders in a > fair mix. The composition of the balloting group is a critical step, and if > the PAR is approved, I would hope that we can count on you for your review > of the balloting group proposed, reviewing it for distribution and > fairness. (I expect that we can, you have been helpful in the past) > > > > The motivation behind organizing an individual WG is to be able to include > some of the individuals in the workgroup for whom it would be a hardship to > run through the entity process. I don't mean to highlight them, but use two > as examples for the kinds of contributors that it will be nice to have > active participation from: Jeff Klaben and Saverio have made very helpful > contributions in the past, and their input on the scoped topics is > anticipated to be every useful moving forward. > > > > · *The support for activities of the working group* > > Your concern that the entity vs individual requested organization > indicates a lack of corporate support can probably be dismissed by listing > the people and companies actively participating in the study group: from > the minutes of the last couple of SG meetings: > > Attendees or active interest : > > l Gary Delp, LSI (chair) > > l Nick Sgoupis, Cast > > l Steve Dovich, Cadence > > l Syed Huq, Cisco > > l Dave Graubart, Synplicity > > l Devin Sundaram, Altera > > l Jim Robinson, Synplicity > > l Jeff Klaben, SF bay Infragard > > l David Smith, Synopsys > > l Joe Hupcey, Cadence > > l Subroto Datta, Altera > > l Arpad Muranyi, Mentor > > l Chuck Swart, Mentor > > l David Tran, Synopsys > > l Jaggi Balasubramanian, Mentor > > l John Shields, Mentor > > l Karen Bartleson, Synopsys > > l Michael McNamara (Mac), Cadence > > l Michael Mirmak, Intel > > l Levent Caglar, Cadence > > l David Tokic, Cadence > > l William A Hanna, Boeing > > l Pete Heller, Cadence > > l Dongxiang Wu, Synopsys > > l Dennis Brophy, Mentor > > l Karen Pieper, Synopsys > > l Abdulrahman Rafiq, Cisco > > l Stan Krolikoski, Cadence > > l Jay Lawrence, Cadence > > l Saverio Fazzari, Booz Allen Hamilton > > I know your name is listed here and you were at just one of the meetings; > there are others from Mentor who have said that they will actively > participate. > > > > · *IEEE as a VSI Dumping ground * > > The two of us and others brought the work over to the DASC both because > the VSI is closing *and* because there is so much synergy between this > work and the language standards. The work was going to be difficult to > close on in VSIA because it needs close interaction with 1800/1364 and 1076. > Dumping ground, no, I have more respect for the DASC than that. This is the > right place to do the work. A number of the participants in the study > group have been contributors to past IEEE work in the related scopes, and > their continued participation should demonstrate a commitment to development > of standards in this technology. > > > > · *Copyright transfer of material* > > > > If we worded to PAR to make you think that there was something secret > here, shame on us. VSI, before it closes, will transfer the IP to IEEE to > make sure that there are no IP issues. Cadence put together a set of > suggestions, and has said that this work will also be fully available for > the work to proceed without encumbrance of copyright issues. > > We fully intend to comply with the policies you quoted by securing > copyright releases for all material that is incorporated into the draft, > well before it is sent to the Standards Board for review. Further, should > the PAR be approved, we intend to insist that the working group operate in > full compliance with IEEE intellectual property policies, particularly since > the proposed scope is centered on the protection of intellectual > property. (This does not make us any different from other WGs, just raises > the level irony if we miss the mark. For this reason, the attention to the > topic will be keen) > > · *Openness of contributions* > > > > I am not sure what your concern is here. In fact VSI did not finish a > full recommendation, exactly to avoid a perception of bringing in a work > formed in a closed group. The materials will be made available to > the working group with copyright transferred, but the WG needs to have a > full and open discussion and agreement to make sure that the right issues > are addressed. > > For each of the copyrights needed by the proposed working group, we have > agreement from their owners to provide their text to the working group, but > we and they fully understand that such a donation does not bind the working > group to use it. Consider the identified copyright requests to be a good > faith attempt to demonstrate that there is adequate basis in existing > practice for elements of the scope that may appear to be new. Ultimately > these, or other replacement documents will be needed, and these are ones the > members of the study group proffered as available descriptions of existing > practice. Under the policy you helpfully quoted, the working group must not > discuss the content of those documents until their disposition is resolved. > > · *Relationship between this work and 1800/1364 and 1076.* > > > > Part of the reason for organization, and the proposal for a recommended > practice rather than a standard is so that DASC can act as the filtering > body, if needed to ensure that there is not overlap but rather cooperation. > > > > 1800/1364 both deal with (System)Verilog exclusively, and 1076 deals > with VHDL exclusively (exclusive in the sense that other languages are not > included in the work scope) this study group --> work group proposes to work > with those groups to coordinate the sharing of requirements, and the > semantic integration into the languages. A recommended practice should not > impinge on the scope of the other groups. The need for standardization of > semantics goes beyond VHDL and (System)Verilog, and specifically it would > be helpful to be able to address the relationship of granted rights across > HDLs and FPGA and ASIC shape output files (EDIF, etc) . By the way, all > of the references that we can find to EDIF say that the group has gone > dormant. It is reasonable in a Recommended practice to "recommend" what > might be done in situations like this. I expect that the recommendation > will include the pursuit of the core of the initial "governing body" and > potentially an encapsulation encryption technique which has no modification > of the legacy file format, but this is for discussion in the group. > > · *Exclusion of international consideration* > > This was the other unfortunate difference from the filed PAR. The > appropriate response should have been "Do not know at this time". That > alternative was not raised when the text you saw was drafted. There is no > animus to international participation, but the path forward from recommended > practice is not currently clear. We expect that issue will resolve itself > over time. Your input on this topic will be valued. > > > In summary, we think we have like intents, we want to work with and not > overlap scope, we have active participants, and are open to additional input > as we move forward. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > / Gary Delp and Steve Dovich > > > > Dr. Gary Delp -- mailto:Gary.Delp@lsi.com <Gary.Delp@lsi.com> / > mailto:Gary.Delp@gmail.com <Gary.Delp@gmail.com> > Distinguished Engineer at LSI -- CTO of VSIA <http://vsi.org/> -- Tech Dir > of The SPIRIT Consortium <http://www.spiritconsortium.org/> > > Director of the LSI University Research Program > Office: +1 507 289 7276 cell: +1 507 319 9220 Fax: +1 507 289 7280 > Physical: 911 23rd Ave SW; Rochester MN 55902; USA > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org<owner-stds-dasc@eda.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Brophy, Dennis > *Sent:* Sunday, October 14, 2007 9:29 AM > *To:* Victor Berman; stds-dasc@eda.org > *Subject:* RE: Study Group has Approved the PAR for P1735, now looking for > feedback and potential approval from the DASC. > > Victor, > > I notice this project is not going the corporate route as others from the > DASC. In particular, the encryption elements that have gone into 1800/1364 > seems to conflict with some of this work as well and I'm at a loss to know > what market relevance the work has if it cannot gain corporate backing as > 1800/1364 have. The lack of corporate backing tells me the donating entity > may be using us as their dumping grounds rather than a foundation to build > from. > > You also know I am not a fan of authorizing a group to begin based on > information that is being withheld from the group. In fact, from the PAR > form there is an outstanding copyright issue with the donation from VSI. > And there is undisclosed information from Cadence Design Systems. Since > the IEEE SA Operation Manual does not allow us to "accept or consider" > material "if it contains any statement that places any burden on the > recipient with respect to … copyright." (See > http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect4.html) > *4.1.1.5* Confidentiality Statements and Copyright Notices on > Communications > > *The IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees operate in an open manner. > To that end, no material submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board or its > committees will be accepted or considered if it contains any statement that > places any burden on the recipient(s) with respect to confidentiality or > copyright. Any communication, including electronic mail, containing language > with such restrictive wording will not be accepted or considered.* > > *It should be noted that this policy does not apply to IEEE copyrighted > materials, such as draft standards. In the event that copyrighted materials > are to be incorporated in an IEEE standard, an acceptable copyright release > or assignment must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to approval of > the standard by the IEEE-SA Standards Board.* > > *The project should go the corporate route and we should get additional > corporate backers for the work. This project cannot be considered if it > references material that has not or cannot be shared openly with the rest of > the group. If the group wishes to be open about how it plans to satisfy its > scope by working to that end, that is fine. But if it calls out a possible > solution in the PAR, that material must be openly available. One solution > would be to drop the reference to the currently private Cadence information > and have it be part of the group's work consideration during the project. > There are references to non-IEEE standards but no reference to the > controlling entity. (EDIF) The other standards which do have encryption > also have international consideration as part of their project. Why would > this recommended practice not have this?* > > *Regards,* > > *Dennis* > ** * > ------------------------------ > * > > *From: owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org [ > mailto:owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org <owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org>] On > Behalf Of Victor Berman > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:17 AM > To: stds-dasc@server.eda.org > Subject: FW: Study Group has Approved the PAR for P1735, now looking for > feedback and potential approval from the DASC.* > > *Please review the draft PAR so that we can discuss and possibly vote on > it at the next DASC meeting on October 18, 2007.* > > *Thanks,* > > * Victor * > > *Victor Berman* > > *President & CEO* > > *Improv Systems, Inc.* > > *Email: victorb@improvsys.com* > > *Office: 978 927 0555 x 27* > > *Mobile**: 978 390 7704* > ** * > ------------------------------ > * > > *From: owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org [ > mailto:owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org <owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org>] On > Behalf Of Delp, Gary > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:12 AM > To: stds-dasc@server.eda.org > Cc: ip-encrypt@server.eda.org; vsiboard@lists.vsi.org > Subject: FW: Study Group has Approved the PAR for P1735, now looking for > feedback and potential approval from the DASC.* > > * **The 1735 Study group has prepared and approved the submission of the > Program Autorization Request. I am forwarding this to the DASC for your > reading pleasure.* > > *Please provide feedback, and at an appropriate time, I expect that we > will vote on this in the DASC.** * > > *Thanks!** * > > */gary** * > > *Type of Project:** PAR for a New Standard > 1.1 Project Number: P1735 > 1.2 Type of Document: Recommended Practice for > 1.3 Life Cycle: Full > 1.4 Is this project in ballot now? No > 1.5 Is the balloting group aware of the PAR modification? > > > 2.1 Title of Standard: Recommended Practice for Design Intellectual > Property (IP) Encryption and Rights Management > > 3.1 Name of Working Group: ** [image: Picture (Metafile)][image: Picture > (Metafile)]** > Contact information for Working Group Chair > > Email:Gary.Delp@gmail.com > Phone: +1 507 289 7276 > Contact Information for Working Group Vice Chair > > Email: dovich@toolscribe.com > Phone: +1 978 262 6413 > 3.2 Sponsoring Society and Committee: IEEE Computer Society/Design > Automation (C/DA) > Contact information for Sponsor Chair: > Victor Berman > Email: victorb@improvsys.com > Phone: 978 927 0555 x 27 > Contact information for Standards Representative: > > Email: > Phone: > 3.3 Joint Sponsor:/ () > Contact information for Sponsor Chair: > > Email: > Phone: > Contact information for Standards Representative: > > Email: > Phone: > 4.1 Type of Ballot: Individual > 4.2 Expected Date of Submission for Initial Sponsor Ballot: - 12-24 months > from start > 4.3 Projected Completion Date for Submittal to RevCom: - 3-6 months from > the start of balloting > 5.1 Approximate number of people expected to work on this project: > 8-16 > > 5.2 Scope of Proposed Standard: This standard specifies an embeddable > markup syntax for IP Encryption and Design Rights Management, together with > recommendations for integration with design specification formats described > in other standards. It also defines recommended use models for selecting > encryption and encoding algorithms, and for encryption key management. > Specifically excluded from the scope are Movies, digital encoded > entertainment, etc. > > 5.3 Is the completion of this standard is dependent upon the completion of > another standard: No > If yes, please explain: > > 5.4 Purpose of Proposed Standard: There is currently no defined, > independent standard for describing IP Encryption markup for design > information formats. Each design format which incorporates IP Encryption > describes their markup differently leading to confusing interpretation. > Users of those standards also lack a recommended practice for inter-operable > use of IP Encryption. > > 5.5 Need for the Project: Working groups currently incorporating IP > Encryption technologies use different descriptive language which makes > shared implementation technology more difficult to produce, and the > standards more difficult to interpret. Users of those standards also want > further guidance on how to use the IP Encryption technologies for > inter-operability. > 5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: > Intellectual Property > 6.1.a. Has the IEEE-SA policy on intellectual property been presented to > those responsible for preparing/submitting this PAR prior to the PAR > submittal to the IEEE-SA Standards Board? Yes > If yes, state date: 2007-08-22 (and each subsequent meeting) > If no, please explain: > 6.1.b. Is the Sponsor aware of any copyright permissions needed for this > project? Yes > If yes, please explain: Proposed base documents are anticipated from > Cadence Design Systems and VSIA. Text from IEEE 1364-2005 and current draft > of 1076 will be usefully incorporated. Because this is a recommended > proactive, we make the assumption that this text can be used.* > > *The VSI has had a workgroup on this topic. This group has affirmed the > willingness and capability to transfer copyright of the material prepared > for this group, as individual members and as the corporation of VSI to the > P1735 project as an asset transfer.* > > *Cadence has agreed to provide the rights management draft. > 6.1.c. Is the Sponsor aware of possible registration activity related to > this project? No > If yes, please explain: > 7.1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar scope? Yes > If yes, please explain: IEEE Std 1364-2005 contains related specification, > as does the current P1076 draft. Similar embedded markup exists for EDIF and > other languages for which standardization in other forums is desired. > Questions on interpretation and intent arise in existing working groups and > there is no clear consensus on which working group should take the lead in > resolving these liaison issues. It is proposed that the DASC act as the > unification forum for these topics, and that the P1735 be the focus group. > * > > *There is significant activity in the rest of the standards world on > encryption, it has been surveyed and there is no scope overlap. The closest > activity is on XML encryption in w3c, and we have liaison activity initiated > with that group. The scope of application between the W3C group and this > proposed group differ significantly.* > > *and answer the following:** Sponsor Organization: DASC > Project/Standard Number: P1800 & P1076 > Project/Standard Date: 2008-12-30 & ballot pending > Project/Standard Title:SystemVerilog & VHDL > 7.2 Future Adoptions > Is there potential for this standard (in part or in whole) to be adopted > by another national, regional, or international organization? No > If Yes, the following questions must be answered: > Technical Committee Name and Number: > Other Organization Contact Information: > Contact person: > Contact Email address: > 7.3 Will this project result in any health, safety, security, or > environmental guidance that affects or applies to human health or safety? No > If yes, please explain: > 7.4 Additional Explanatory Notes: (Item Number and Explanation) > 8.1 Sponsor Information: > Is the scope of this project within the approved scope/definition of the > Sponsor's Charter? Yes > If no, please explain: * > > *Dr. Gary Delp -- mailto:Gary.Delp@lsi.com <Gary.Delp@lsi.com>** / > mailto:Gary.Delp@gmail.com <Gary.Delp@gmail.com> > Distinguished Engineer at LSI -- CTO of VSIA -- Tech Dir of The SPIRIT > Consortium > Director of the LSI University Research Program > Office: +1 507 289 7276 cell: +1 507 319 9220 Fax: +1 507 289 7280 > Physical: 911 23rd Ave SW; Rochester MN 55902; USA * > > *-----Original Message----- > From: owner-ip-encrypt@eda.org [mailto:owner-ip-encrypt@eda.org<owner-ip-encrypt@eda.org>] > On Behalf Of Steven J. Dovich > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:24 AM > To: ip-encrypt@eda.org; Victor Berman > Subject: Approved PAR for P1735 * > > *Attending: > Steven Dovich - Cadence (Acting Chair) > Devin Sundaram - Altera > Saverio Fazzari - Design and IP Methodology > Nick Sgoupis - CAST > Jeff Klaben - SF Bay Infragard > * Abdulrahman Rafiq - Cisco * > > **Motion (Saverio Fazzari/Devin Sundaram) to approve the proposed PAR. > Motion passed (unanimous) * > > *Approved PAR is attached. * > > *-- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > **<<P1735_iPAR_20071010.doc>> * > > * > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by * <http://www.mailscanner.info/>*MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/>**MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. * > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
