Minutes from the 28 September 2016 IBIS Interconnect Task group meeting
are attached.
Mike
======================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/ ;
Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ;
======================================================================
Attendees from September 28 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark
Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim
Cisco David Siadat
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak*
Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki*, Ming Yan
Mentor Graphics Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield, Randy Wolff*
SAE ITC Maureen Lemankiewicz, Logen Johnson
Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte*
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross*
University of Aveiro in Portugal Wael Dghais
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Review of Minutes:
Michael called for review of the minutes from the September 21 meeting. Bob
moved to approve the minutes. Arpad seconded. The minutes were approved
without
objection.
Review of ARs:
- Michael to look into changing to the phrase, "Interconnect Modeling
keywords", throughout the document.
- In progress.
Opens:
- None
Interconnect BIRD draft 41 Review:
Michael showed draft 41. He said we needed to continue at the beginning of
[Interconnect Model Set] on page 11. Michael asked if "associated" was used
properly on that page. Mike suggested deleting it.
Bob questioned the use of "section" in the paragraph under that. Michael noted
tat Manufacturer and Description are keywords, not sub-parameters. Also the
rules for those need to be moved to separate definitions of the keywords. Bob
said we should follow the convention set by [Define Package Model]. Mike
described that section from page 140 of IBIS 6.1. Radek suggested following
that convention. Michael asked if the same sub-keywords for [Define Package
Model] were optional. Bob said they were. Bob described some conventions we have
followed. Michael added notes about the changes to be made. Walter said
[Manufacturer] should be optional. Bob agreed. Bob asked if [Manufacturer]
and [Description] could be sub-params. Mike said we always use bracketed
keywords for multi-line content.
Michael said the comment asking if examples should be given earlier may have
merit since examples begin 7 pages down. Mike suggested a short 5 line example.
Randy felt it would not be worth it to have that. Mike also suggested giving a
reference to
the examples page. Randy noted [External Circuit] had 4 or 5 pages before the
first examples appeared, so we had a precedent.
Bob noted that pages 12 and 13 use "package model" a number of times,
and wondered if it should be "interconnect model". Michael noted that
there were different types of these, pin-to-pad, pad-to-buffer, etc. Arpad
said this included on-die interconnect and should not be called a package
model. Randy suggested "on-die interconnect".
Michael said that at that point the document had not yet defined buffer, pad
and signal. Michael asked if the parenthetical statements in the last sentence
of page 12 were needed. He divided that sentence into bullets. Arpad asked if
"signal" precluded power and ground. Mike asked if "signal" really implied
I/O, since power pins have signal names. Randy suggested deleting "for each
signal". Michael noted that the following sentence also uses "signal". Randy
suggested deleting that sentence, it was redundant considering the list
above it. Michael did that.
We looked at Other Notes on page 13. Randy said "on-die model" needed to have
"interconnect". Radek suggested not having "e.g." because the phrases were used
below.
We changed "package model" to "interconnect model" in some places. Michael
asked if "interconnect model" should be capitalized. Randy said "May just
contain" seemed awkward. It was changed to "contain only".
On page 14 Bob said Manufacturer and Description paragraphs could be moved to
where the new keywords are described. Mike suggested having those keywords in
[Interconnect Model Set] because that corresponded to a package model. Mike
noted that Interconnect Models for package and die might come from separate
manufacturers, but we decided to keep Manufacturer at Interconnect Model
Set level.
Michael read the comment about format consistency, saying he felt the section
formatting already was consistent. Bob said we should look at the multi-lingual
section for guidance.
Michael suggested not posting the draft.
Bob moved to adjourn. Radek seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection.
