We gave the industry an AR today in the Interconnect Task Group regarding the
proposed pole-reside format for Touchstone 3.0. Specifically, what features
and organization would you prefer to see, if a pole-residue keyword set were
added in Touchstone?
For example, should the format support complex values in real/imaginary form
only, or in other formats? Should the number of poles and residues be
specifically named, as Touchstone 2 does with numbers of ports and frequencies?
Should all the poles for a specific port be provided before the resides for
that same port, before moving on to the next port? Should a particular port
ordering be assumed (e.g., the same one named elsewhere in the Touchstone 2.0
file)? And so on...
At this point, no assumption is being made that the specification will
determine the algorithm for extracting pole-residue data, or how any
pole-residue data might be used as input by a simulator (e.g., to convert it to
a circuit representation).
While the question was primarily focused on EDA and measurement equipment
vendors, all responses are welcome. From this information, we are hoping to
understand what common denominators exist across requested formats and
structure any Touchstone formatting accordingly.
Thank you!
* MM
