[ibis-editorial] Re: [EXT] Re: Question about Series models
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Mirmak, Michael" <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>, "rrwolff@xxxxxxxxxx" <rrwolff@xxxxxxxxxx>, "ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:54:27 +0000
during the review of the submitted version in the Open Forum
I am not sure I follow this. There was nothing submitted yet...
Thanks,
Arpad
=========================================================
From: Mirmak, Michael <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 10:50 AM
To: rrwolff@xxxxxxxxxx; Muranyi, Arpad (DI SW EBS PST AV)
<arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-editorial] Re: [EXT] Re: Question about Series models
Arpad,
I strongly agree with Randy - my only suggested change would be to add a comma
after the phrase "clamping circuitry".
We should perhaps call attention to this update in some way during the review
of the submitted version in the Open Forum, as we won't have any documented
commentary on it now that we are pivoting away from submitting a formal BIRD.
Many thanks!
* MM
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Randy Wolff
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 4:18 PM
To: arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:arpad.muranyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: [EXT] Re: Question about Series models
Arpad,
This change satisfies my concerns with the wording change not being too major.
It keeps most of the existing text while adding important clarifications.
Thanks,
Randy
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 10:40 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXT] [ibis-editorial] Re: Question about Series models
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and were expecting this message.
Hello Everyone,
Based on our discussion in the Editorial Committee Teleconference today,
I revised my proposal for this clarification. I did this as another iteration
of
the BIRD draft, but if we agree that this simplified proposed text can be
handled as an editorial change, we don't have to submit the BIRD.
Please note that I "caught" another grammar issue on pg. 55 in the sentence:
"The third column, model_name, associates models of type Series or
Series_switch,
or model selectors containing references to models of type Series or
Series_switch for
the pair of pins in the first two columns."
As far as my limited English goes, we are associating something with and not for
something else... (We might be making associations for certain purposes)...
The color coding in the attached Word document is this: yellow is the original
text that is questionable in IBIS v7.1, green is the proposed replacement text
for
IBIS v7.2.
Anyway, questions, comments, corrections are welcome as always. Hopefully
this can be handled as an editorial change without submitting the BIRD.
Thanks,
Arpad
====================================================================
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 10:36 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Question about Series models
Attached is a BIRD draft in case we decide to submit a BIRD for this...
Thanks,
Arpad
===========================================================
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 3:54 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Question about Series models
Hello Everyone,
I get a question every once in a while about the [Series Pin Mapping] keyword
because
people notice a difference in the waveforms when they compare, say a 100 Ohm
resistor
defined as a Series [Model] with a resistor defined on the schematics as an
actual resistor
(connected between the pins of a differential buffer). Their expectation is to
see identical
waveforms.
I have to explain to them that the difference is that the resistor in the
Series [Model] is
at the die pads, i.e. behind the package model, and the discrete resistor on
the schematics
is at the pins, i.e. before the package model.
The response I get to this explanation is that the [Series Pin Mapping] keyword
uses "Pin"
in its name and the IBIS specification uses the word "pin" in the entire
section where the
keyword is described. I end up having to explain that the [Series Pin Mapping]
keyword
references a [Model], and a [Model] is always considered to be on the die
(regardless of
its type), and consequently it is always surrounded by the package model. As I
was writing
this to someone today, I noticed a small hint for the existence of the package
(on pg. 56),
but I think it is a very weak statement, and actually it is not entirely
correct:
[cid:image001.png@01D908A0.52115F00]
The highlighted words seem to imply that the package parasitics are part of the
[Model]
that is referenced by the [Pin] keyword. If I remember correctly, none of the
package
related syntax is part of the [Model] keyword, they all have their own
keywords, and for
this reason this statement seems to be incorrect.
I think we need to change this sentence as a minimum, but it would also be nice
to make
a clear "reminder" statement somewhere that series [Model]s are always behind
the
package model (on the die), even though the text uses the word pin all over the
place.
Should we try to fix this in v7.2, or would this require a BIRD?
Thanks,
Arpad
=========================================================================
Other related posts: