SEMI International Standards
Standards New Activity Report Form (SNARF)
Revised (if Applicable):
Revision to Add a New Subordinate Standard: Specification for Protocol Buffers of Data
Collection Management to SEMI E134-0414, Specification for Data Collection Management
Originating Global Technical Committee:
Information & Control
Originating TC Chapter:
Task Force (TF) in which work is to be carried out:
Diagnostic Data Acquisition Task Force NA
Note: If a new task force is needed, also submit a task force organization form (TFOF)
a. Describe the need or problem addressed by this activity.
(Indicate the customer, what benefits they will receive, and if possible, quantify the impact on the return on investment [ROI] if the Document is implemented.)
EDA Standards currently use HTTP/1.1 with SOAP/XML messages. Internet Technologies have evolved since when the EDA Standards were first developed, and a number of issues identified with the current Freeze Version can be addressed by incorporating newer infrastructure technology. They include:
Data Compression – Would like to reduce the network load.
Better Resource Management - HTTP/1.1 can be expensive with 2 sockets per request message, no pipelining and no socket reuse.
Data Security – Would like to protect the data payload.
After a research and investigation phase, HTTP/2 is proposed as the replacement technology to HTTP/1.1, and gRPC with Protocol Buffers as the protocol framework on top of HTTP/2. This combination provides the best performance and out of the box support for multiple platforms and programming languages, and addresses the issues identified with HTTP/1.1.
We want a technology that remains in the HTTP realm and allows us to keep the advantages of Internet technologies / Web Services. HTTP/2 is a major revision to HTTP/1.1, focused on performance.
We want support for single bi-directional connections, which can reduce computer resources and time-consuming connection efforts.
The HTTP/2 channel can be encrypted with SSL/TLS if desired. More firewall products support HTTP/2 natively as they incorporate HTTP/2 into their protocol anomaly filters.
gRPC and Protocol Buffers use a binary encoding, which has been shown to give better performance.
b. Estimate effect on industry.
2: Major effect on an industry sector - identify the relevant sector
Sector or Company Information:
Anywone implementing EDA
c. Estimate technical difficulty of the activity.
II: Some Difficulty - Disagreements on known requirements exist but developing consensus is possible
Describe the technical areas to be covered or addressed by this Document development activity. For Subordinate Standards, list common concepts or criteria that the Subordinate Standard inherits from the Primary Standard, as well as differences from the Primary Standard:
This proposal suggests to create a new Subordinate Standard to SEMI E134 to define how E134 functionality will be handled with gRPC and Protocol Buffers. This work can include defining .proto files which will describe messages and parameters to support SEMI E134 implementations.
The ballot will also include any minor changes identified during the ballot creation.
b: Expected result of activity
New Subordinate Standard to an existing Standard or to a new Primary Standard to be developed concurrently with this new Subordinate Standard
For a new Subordinate Standard, identify the Primary Standard here:
For Standards, identify the Standard Subtype below:
3. Projected Timetable for Completion:
a: General Milestones
a. Activity Start:
b. 1st Draft by:
c. (Optional) Informational Ballot by:
d. Letter Ballot by:
e. TC Chapter Approval By:
4. Liaisons with other Global Technical Committees/TC Chapters/Subcommittees/TFs:
List SEMI global technical committees, TC Chapters, subcommittees, or task forces in your or other Regions/Locales that should be kept informed regarding the progress of this activity. (Refer to SEMI Standards organization charts and global technical committee charters as needed.)
List any planned Type I Liaisons with external nonprofit organizations (e.g., SDO) that should receive Draft Documents from Standards staff for feedback during this activity and be notified when the Letter Ballot is issued (see Procedure Manual § 7):
will not be issued
Identify the recipient global technical committee(s):
5. Safety Considerations:
The resulting document is expected:
NOT to be a Safety Guideline
to be a Safety Guideline
": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is NOT technically sound and complete - Refer to Section 15.1 of the
for special procedures to be followed.
NOT to be a Safety Guideline
": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is still technically sound and complete.
6. Intellectual Property Considerations:
For a new Standard or Safety Guideline and for any part to be modified or added in a Revision of published Standards and Safety Guidelines
patented technology is intended to be included in the proposed Standard(s) or Safety Guideline(s).
If "patented technology is intended to be included in the proposed Standard(s) or Safety Guideline(s) " is selected above, then also check one:
Letter of Intent received
For Revision, Reapproval, Reinstatement, or Withdrawal of existing Standard(s) and Safety Guideline(s):
The body of the Document and any Appendices, Complementary Files, Related Information sections, or Various Materials that may or may not be a part of the Document by reference:
the incorporation of Copyrighted Item will NOT be required
the use of patented technology or the incorporation of Copyrighted Item(s) is NOT required’
: If in the course of developing the Document, it is determined that the use of patented technology or Copyrighted Item(s) is necessary for the Document, the provisions of
§ 16 must be followed.
will incorporate Copyrighted Item’
: A copyright release letter must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to publication.
7. Comments, Special Circumstances:
TC Member Review:
took place between (put dates below) before approval by the GCS, or
Member Review Start Date;
Member Review End Date:
‘TC Member Review’ is required by the
for a period of at least two weeks
before approval of a new, or a major revision of an existing, Standard or Safety Guideline. (See
9. SNARF Approval Dates:
TC Chapter or GCS
Recorded in TC Minutes
10. SNARF Extension Dates:
TC Chapter Extension Granted on
Extension Expires on
Attach Pictures and Files here: