(attaching a text version of the minutes for ease of archiving)
======================================================================
IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP
http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/
Mailing list: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives at //www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-editorial/
======================================================================
Attendees from May 6 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
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Mike LaBonte moved to approve the minutes of the April 22 meeting. Bob Ross
seconded. No objections were raised and the minutes were approved.
Mike suggested an open, brief discussion of when to create a draft IBIS 6.2.
He noted that other BIRDs are possible. Bob replied that we need to know what
we're doing first. Michael asked whether the next release should be 6.2 or
7.0. Radek stated that he was assuming that the Interconnect BIRD would be part
of 7.0, but the reference BIRD is also relevant to the discussion. He does not
know of any others.
Bob noted that one approved BIRD should be added, BIRD 179. Mike asked whether
the parser will be affected and if it is funded. Bob replied that funds are
not a problem. Michael asked whether parser changes would be needed for
referencing. Radek replied that keyword changes may require some parser
changes.
Michael asked when the cutoff for the next version should be set. Bob
suggested that it should be after the Pin Reference BIRD and BIRD 179. Radek
added that BIRD 179 is not related to cleanup but could be part of minor
release; he noted that the re-driver flow and backchannel BIRDs are both slowly
getting ready.
Arpad Muranyi noted that that he wouldn't mind if the backchannel and
Interconnect BIRDs were in two separate releases; backchannel will take some
time. He would rather release a new version right away if Interconnect is
ready.
Mike stated that 7.0 may be ready before 6.2 is ready. 7.1 might have
backchannel support. Arpad noted that it is tough to integrate large features
together; models and tool vendor support may not be in sync. Major version
numbers are a proxy for new big features.
Radek observed that 6.2 was supposed to be cleanup for references. BIRD 179 is
not critical for 6.2.
Bob would like a bit of parser change to justify a parser version change. The
workload is referencing, terminology, and terminology conventions (including
cases where we interchange the formal name and the content). Mike asked for
examples of this.
Michael noted that the [* Reference] keywords and [Voltage Range] rail vs.
value need clarification. Bob added Interconnect specification syntax item #15
in Mike's list needs addressing. No timeline can be established until the full
scope is understood.
The team turned to reviewing the new reference paragraphs. Bob & Radek agreed
on removing the first paragraph. The team then engaged in "live" editing of
the reference document.
Radek used an analogy for the document approach - if a given node is a
reference node, other nodes are measured vs. this node. Voltage measured "at"
this node is 0 V with respect to zero node of the simulator.
Michael asked whether the voltage is zero or voltage is meaningless. Mike
suggested this is a "no-op". Arpad added that a reference doesn't have a
voltage, by definition.
Radek disagreed; a short circuit makes two nodes into the same node. We have
to avoid mixing the reference node for the buffer and the reference node for
the simulator.
Bob stated that the issue is that [Pullup Reference], etc. *were* originally
defined with respect to the simulator reference. Leaving the reference node
ambiguous may cause a problem in DUT assumption. He suggested that [Pin
Reference] is a "handle" for the reference of the particular device of
interest, for the purposes of DIA.
Radek replied that the document should use specific SPICE node 0 language.
Mike added that it was the original, easiest assumption. Radek noted that the
assumption was implicit not explicit. Arpad advised being careful about past
tense usage, as this assumption may still be active.
Editing will continue in the next meeting.
Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.
(attaching a text version of the minutes for ease of archiving)
======================================================================
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 May 6 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
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Mike LaBonte moved to approve the minutes of the April 22 meeting.
Bob Ross seconded. No objections were raised and the minutes were
approved.
Mike suggested an open, brief discussion of when to create a draft
IBIS 6.2. He noted that other BIRDs are possible. Bob replied that
we need to know what were doing first. Michael asked whether the
next release should be 6.2 or 7.0. Radek stated that he was assuming
that the Interconnect BIRD would be part of 7.0, but the reference
BIRD is also relevant to the discussion. He does not know of any
others.
Bob noted that one approved BIRD should be added, BIRD 179. Mike
asked whether the parser will be affected and if it is funded. Bob
replied that funds are not a problem. Michael asked whether parser
changes would be needed for referencing. Radek replied that keyword
changes may require some parser changes.
Michael asked when the cutoff for the next version should be set. Bob
suggested that it should be after the Pin Reference BIRD and BIRD 179.
Radek added that BIRD 179 is not related to cleanup but could be part
of minor release; he noted that the re-driver flow and backchannel
BIRDs are both slowly getting ready.
Arpad Muranyi noted that that he wouldnt mind if the backchannel and
Interconnect BIRDs were in two separate releases; backchannel will
take some time. He would rather release a new version right away if
Interconnect is ready.
Mike stated that 7.0 may be ready before 6.2 is ready. 7.1 might have
backchannel support. Arpad noted that it is tough to integrate large
features together; models and tool vendor support may not be in sync.
Major version numbers are a proxy for new big features.
Radek observed that 6.2 was supposed to be cleanup for references.
BIRD 179 is not critical for 6.2.
Bob would like a bit of parser change to justify a parser version
change. The workload is referencing, terminology, and terminology
conventions (including cases where we interchange the formal name and
the content). Mike asked for examples of this.
Michael noted that the [* Reference] keywords and [Voltage Range] rail
vs. value need clarification. Bob added Interconnect specification
syntax item #15 in Mikes list needs addressing. No timeline can be
established until the full scope is understood.
The team turned to reviewing the new reference paragraphs. Bob & Radek
agreed on removing the first paragraph. The team then engaged in live
editing of the reference document.
Radek used an analogy for the document approach if a given node is a
reference node, other nodes are measured vs. this node. Voltage measured
at this node is 0 V with respect to zero node of the simulator.
Michael asked whether the voltage is zero or voltage is meaningless.
Mike suggested this is a no-op. Arpad added that a reference doesnt
have a voltage, by definition.
Radek disagreed; a short circuit makes two nodes into the same node. We
have to avoid mixing the reference node for the buffer and the reference
node for the simulator.
Bob stated that the issue is that [Pullup Reference], etc. *were*
originally defined with respect to the simulator reference. Leaving the
reference node ambiguous may cause a problem in DUT assumption. He
suggested that [Pin Reference] is a handle for the reference of the
particular device of interest, for the purposes of DIA.
Radek replied that the document should use specific SPICE node 0 language.
Mike added that it was the original, easiest assumption. Radek noted that
the assumption was implicit not explicit. Arpad advised being careful
about past tense usage, as this assumption may still be active.
Editing will continue in the next meeting.
Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.
