Minutes from the August 05, 2016 IBIS Editorial Task group meeting are
attached. A document presented in the meeting has been posted:
Title <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bytitle.htm>
Formats
Authors <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-byauthor.htm>
Organization <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bycompany.htm>
Date <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/index-bydate.htm>
IBIS 6.2 BIRD Candidates rev 2
.docx <http://ibis.org/editorial_wip/IBIS6.2_BIRD_candidates_2.docx>
Mike LaBonte
Signal Integrity Software (SiSoft)
Aug 05 2016
Mike
======================================================================
IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/ ;
Mailing list: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-editorial/ ;
======================================================================
Attendees from August 05 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*
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
Mike LaBonte convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Minutes from the July 29 meeting were not available in time for review.
During opens Bob said he would be on vacation Aug 22 to 29, unable to join
meetings.
Individual BIRDs for IBIS 6.2:
Mike showed the list of IBIS 6.2 BIRD candidates. He said we might merge some
and delete some during the meeting. The new BIRD candidates were identified
by letter.
BIRD A: Reserved name rule scoping clarifications
Bob said Walter had proposed that one in his ver6_2_draft_rev3_wmk.docx
document but it needed to be written as a BIRD. Mike showed
ver6_2_draft_rev3_wmk.docx. Bob said he and Walter had not reached agreement
on it. The language is too specific. He said we would need to discuss the
fact that if certain words are used elsewhere they become case sensitive.
BIRD C: Ground symbol clarifications
Radek said it needed some work. Bob suggested A and C might be merged into one
BIRD.
We agreed and Mike made that change, noting that he will delete C later.
BIRD B: I/V table reference terminal clarifications
Bob said this extensive change should be written showing the full "before"
text and "after" text. Mike will write this BIRD.
BIRD D: Require one model_name per signal_name in [Pin]
Bob suggested this could be folded into BIRD 180. Mike wondered if the ideas
should be considered separately so that one does not hamper the other. He
noted that Arpad wanted to wait on BIRD 180, which might preclude a future
syntax in which additional [Pin] data is spread across multiple lines.
Arpad said that the idea was to someday allow multiple buffers per pin.
Bob agreed BIRD D could remain separate. Radek said BIRD D and BIRD 180 may
have dependencies. Bob noted that BIRD 180 also fixed other issues such as
CIRCUITCALL missing from a list of reserved words.
Radek requested discussion on a related topic at the end. Curtis noted
that Walter had suggested making a decision on BIRD 180 soon. That might
be done in ATM meetings. Arpad noted that there were other BIRDs related
to multi-chip package modeling submitted before Walter's, and that BIRD 180
would theoretically block those other BIRDs.
Arpad showed BIRD 125.1. Arpad described how this enabled multiple connections
to pins. Bob noted that that applied to [Pin Numbers], not [Pin]. Arpad said
it might apply to [Pin] too. Bob said the BIRD proposed something like an EBD
version of [Define Package Model]. Radek said the Interconnect BIRD relied
on the one to one connection rule. Arpad said Walter had said multi-chip
connections would be addressed in EBD or in some other future proposal.
Mike suggested we should not consider these BIRDs for 6.2, it fell outside
the scope of the effort. He also noted that BIRD 180 was written because
IBISCHK already flags an error for repeated entries in [Pin]. Bob said
[Interconnect Model] would allow connecting multiple buffers to a pin,
nothing technically would prevent two buffers from being connected together by
a circuit. Curtis suggested the discussion should be taken up in ATM meetings.
BIRD E: Specify POWER/GND [Pin Mapping] by [Pin]
Bob said Walter's proposal was not clear. Mike said it offered a convenience
for model makers by allowing [Pin Mapping] entries to be omitted where [Pin]
entries already convey the same information. Bob said [Define Package Model]
makes references to bus_labels, and that may cause issues. Bob suggested that
another question was whether a [Bus Label] BIRD should be considered. Mike
said that was part of the Interconnect Task Group work.
BIRD F: Specify buffer reference terminals for pins
Bob suggested BIRDs F and G could be combined, but it would be OK to do
nothing. Radek said this was part of GND cleanup. They might be combined but
both proposals are useful. Bob said the [Pin Reference] proposal had major
controversy. Mike proposed deleting BIRD F from the list, believing Walter
had withdrawn his support. Radek wanted to keep it, did not recall it being
dropped. He needed to see the minutes of discussions he might have missed .
Bob said the proposal had a flaw relating to the requirement for a GND pin.
Curtis said Bob had only objected to the assumption of a zero volt reference.
Bob said it needs significant cleanup work. Mike noted that someone else
could submit that BIRD if there is interest.
Curtis moved to adjourn. Bob seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.
