Minutes from the 26 October 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 October 26, 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 October 24 meeting:
Mike LaBonte moved to approve. Arpad Muranyi seconded. Minutes were approved
without objection.
Review of ARs:
- Michael to send the latest IBIS 7.0 draft and checklist.
- Michael reported this is done and thanked Mike for posting.
Opens:
- Bob Ross commented the Table of Contents has some indentation issues. He add
that we also need to move the [End] keyword. Michael stated the [End]
keyword issue is on the checklist as item number 75. Mike noted the Table of
Contents is also on the checklist, but we could add a note about the
indentation issue.
Editorial review of ver7_0_181026.docx and the task checklist:
Michael noted, in the most recent draft, the headings in the Navigation pane
will show up in the Table of Contents. He noted the section numbering down to
three levels of hierarchy is not done, as he ran into some issues with the
style setup in the Word document. He will need to consult with some technical
writers at Intel for additional help on this. He recommended to wait to
resolve this before fixing the indentation issues. Bob thought if the
numbering is adding it should fix the issue.
Michael noted that the style sets the depth of the Table of Contents. He asked
if three levels of depth in the Table of Contents are sufficient. Bob replied
that IBIS 6.1 only has three levels. Arpad suggested to have only numbered
levels show up in the Table of Contents. Mike agreed and noted the unnumbered
headers such as the summary tables are okay to exclude. Michael noted Section
10 and Section 7 are consistent, but Section 6 has some headings that are not
associated with the hierarchy. He asked if we should add these to the
hierarchy. Arpad thought that this should be consistent with section 10. Bob
noted that, in Section 10, we have a different style. He agreed with Arpad and
asked about the headings for Section 12. Michael will add headings and
numbering to Section 6 [AR].
Michael stated, in Section 10.9, we agreed that the Channel Analysis Flow
sections would be numbered. There is currently no introduction and separate
table section. Michael noted he removed the duplicate tables. He also added
the new parameters to the summary tables. Bob asked if the tables are sorted
by IBIS version. Michael noted Table 39 is sorted alphabetically. Bob asked
if we are consistent on this. Michael stated for the most part in the tables
we observe alphabetical ordering. Michael noted that all the table and figure
numbers and references to those tables and figures should now be linked. The
table and figure numbers will now be automatically updated. Arpad commented
that some of the X's in Table 40 are not centered. He asked about the table
not fitting in the margins. Michael noted that we have a checklist item on
this, but the table may look better in the No Markup view. Bob commented we
also need to make sure to not line wrap the parameter names in the tables.
Bob asked about the order of the EMI and Interconnect Modeling sections. He
proposed moving the EMI section to the end of IBIS 7.0. Michael stated we
could do this. Bob thought the Interconnect Modeling is of higher importance
than EMI. Michael asked if there were any objections to moving the EMI section
to the end. No objections were stated.
Michael asked if we can resolve checklist item 58 on the AMI summary tables.
Mike agreed. We marked checklist item 58 as verified.
Michael noted checklist item 59 is on a typo that is now fixed. We marked this
as verified.
Michael stated checklist item 60 is regarding the definition of API was
missing. Mike proposed a change to the first sentence of the Section 10.2
Overview to mention API and define the acronym. Michael noted that he had
added a definition for API further down in Section 10.2, but Mike is proposing
to add it to the introduction. Radek Biernacki thought this is okay. Arpad
asked about the phrase "dynamically-loaded" which Mike added and if this is
always true. Mike replied, without going into the technical details, DLLs are
always dynamically-loaded. Radek agreed. Michael changed this text as
proposed by Mike. He also removed his addition of defining API further down.
We marked checklist item 60 as verified.
Michael noted checklist item 61 is regarding the issue of having the default of
"NA". We still have some inconsistencies in the default column of the tables.
Bob thought that the double dash ("--") is for required parameters, and we
should not use "NA". Mike asked if can agree that if the parameter is present
there is a value, while default means the value if the parameter is absent.
Arpad noted that we have a footnote clarifying this. Bob stated this is why
"NA" is not appropriate, and the default of "0" is correct for many of the
parameters. Mike suggested to change Special_Param_Names and Ts4file defaults
to "None". He asked about the "Yes/No" in the Required column for Tx_V. Arpad
stated that if Ts4file is present Tx_V is required. Mike suggested to state
that in the table. Radek suggested to change the double dash to "None".
Michael asked what is distinction between double dash and "None". Bob stated
the double dash is used for required parameters and "None" for optional
parameters, and he does not like replacing double dash with "None". Bob noted
we have some interdependence between parameters. Mike thought the table could
be very complicated if we state all the interdependences. After some
discussion about how to label the Required field for parameters that are only
required in some situations, it was suggested by Bob to say "(Yes)" with
parenthesis and add a footnote. Michael will change the Required column to
"(Yes)" for conditionally required parameters and add the appropriate footnotes
[AR].
Michael will send out the latest draft and checklist [AR].
Mike moved to adjourn. Radek seconded. The meeting adjourned without
objection.
The next meeting will take place Tuesday, October 30, at 12 PM 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?
