Minutes from the 21 November 2018 IBIS Editorial Task Group meeting are
attached.
Regards,
Justin
================================================================================
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 November 21, 2018 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)
ANSYS Curtis Clark
Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim
Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak*
Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki
Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi*
Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff
SiSoft Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte*
Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross*
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared.
Justin Butterfield took minutes.
Review of minutes from the November 16 meeting:
Bob Ross moved to approve. Walter Katz seconded. Minutes were approved
without objection.
Review of ARs:
- Michael to send out the latest draft and checklist.
- Michael reported these were posted by Mike LaBonte and sent out.
Opens:
- None.
Editorial review of ver7_0_181116.docx and the task checklist:
Michael noted in the Table of Contents there was some concern about the
indentation and capitalization. There are now approximately two spaces between
the numbers and the text. He asked if this is okay. Mike replied this looks
good.
Bob noted in his copy the Figure 1 title is indented in the Table of Figures.
Michael stated we can verify the document posted does not have this issue. Bob
was given an AR to re-download the document and double check the issue with the
Figure 1 title [AR]. Mike commented it could be a MS-Word version issue. Bob
stated he will try on different PC as well. We marked checklist item 74 as
verified.
Review of ver7_0_181107_mlabonte_review.docx:
Mike shared the first markup copy of the document. He used draft
ver7_0_181107.docx for his first review of the document and has added
comments. Some of the comments have question marks, and he proposed to defer
those for now. For the comments without question marks, he is more confident
these are straight forward changes, such as font and typo fixes. Mike
suggested to assign an editor to go through the items and make a judgment call
to make the changes which are not controversial. Some of the comments with
questions may be clarification changes. He used ver7_0_181109.docx for the
second set of comments. Mike noted that he may not have completely reviewed
Section 6, and he has not yet reviewed sections 10 through 12 yet.
Michael asked what would be the most controversial issue. Mike replied there
are not many that will be big issues. He stated one of them is the use of all
caps for emphasis, but there are many cases of this in the document. He also
noted some wording questions, such as changing the word "is" to "shall" in some
cases. Bob commented we would need to review the context of these wording
changes. Mike stated we may not want to address all of these for IBIS 7.0.
Bob was concerned that we do not want unilaterally make changes that could
change the meaning. Arpad Muranyi asked if we should address some of these
issues in IBIS 7.1. Mike thought it should not take long make for the straight
forward changes. Michael stated the only way to confirm these would be to
review the complete document with these changes. He asked if we are okay with
making the changes offline. Mike suggested if there was one set of changes
made to the document we can use the document compare tool to quickly verify the
changes. He suggested to prioritize the simple edits.
One of the Mike's comments was regarding the order of the text introducing the
C_comp and C_comp_* Subparameters. Bob was concerned that moving these
definitions could move the Subparameter definitions before they are
introduced. He was also concerned the term "C_comp_*" is not defined. Mike
stated his concern was that the most important sentence, which defines C_comp,
is toward the end of the text. Michael suggested to move this paragraph to the
start of C_comp and add a parenthetical defining "C_comp_*".
Bob suggested to prioritize the simple fixes and new text review over changing
the older text. Michael asked if Mike has some edits which are priority. Mike
suggested for Michael to make the straight forward changes as editor. For
example in the sentence which states "If any of [Rgnd], [Rpower], [Rac], and
[Cac] keywords is used", the word "are" should be used instead of "is".
Michael suggested this should state "If any one of". Mike stated he is okay
with this change instead.
Mike asked about capitalization when we refer to a concept versus the keyword.
For Submodel, we are not consistent on the capitalization. He asked if we have
policy on this. Michael noted we have a checklist item 82 on this issue, and
this is an open question. Michael proposed to capitalize the concepts. Bob
thought we should be consistent on this, but there could be issues for Reserved
Parameters and Subparameters where we are not consistent. He also noted a
separate issue when referring to a Subparameter versus the Subparameter value.
Mike noted when we talk about Receiver Thresholds, we use the word "reaching"
but it might be more clear to say "rising above" or "falling below". He asked
if this is something we would want to change. Bob stated we should be cautious
on this, as we don't want to change the meaning, for instance being at the
value or beyond.
Arpad was concerned that we might want to postpone changes that take time, as
he does not want to delay releasing IBIS 7.0.
We agreed to have a meeting Wednesday next week.
Michael asked how we want to handle these changes. Mike thought we should make
the minor changes first. Michael proposed to make the simple changes and line
breaks together in the next version. He does not want people to have to review
the document in its entirety more than once. Arpad agreed with this and
proposed to defer the other issues. Michael stated he can list out the other
issues.
Michael asked Bob to send out the issue he sent him to the reflector as a
question [AR].
Arpad asked about column alignment and if the values should be decimal
aligned. Mike noted this might be specific to each table. Michael stated he
would look at the alignment and make some recommendations.
Michael will send out the latest draft and checklist [AR].
Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without
objection.
The next meeting will take place Wednesday, November 28, at 8 AM Pacific.
Open Technical Questions:
1. BIRD182: POWER and GND [Pin] signal_name as [Pin Mapping] bus_label
a. Is a bus_label created even if we don't have [Pin Mapping], [Bus Label],
or [Die Supply Pads] through the [Pin]?
b. Is a bus_label short created for legacy package models based on the
second column of [Pin] when we do not have a [Pin Mapping] entry?
