[ibis-macro] Re: AMI Info Model_Specific parameters: Market Speed vs Standards Speed
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
Scott,
We have a problem to solve, we did not sneak this in. We published
everything we have done and entertained all reasonable requests for
change. I do not think you can ask us to do anything else.
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott McMorrow
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:43 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI Info Model_Specific parameters: Market Speed
vs Standards Speed
Walter
So essentially these mechanisms are being used to sneak in new IBIS_AMI
features without going through the standardization process first. And
this allows the model to be "advertised" as IBIS-AMI compliant.
Afterwards, once the implementation is fait accompli, a model maker comes
back to the committee to standardize what has become a de facto standard
for that model. Is my understanding correct?
Scott
Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
121 North River Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 284-1827 Business
(401) 284-1840 Fax
http://www.teraspeed.com
TeraspeedR is the registered service mark of
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
On 3/24/2011 4:30 PM, Walter Katz wrote:
Arpad,
The fundamental problem that we face is the need for IC Vendors to supply
System Companies with models that they can use today to design next
generation high speed products. Info parameters in BIRDS 121-124 are
required to do this today. The market cannot wait for IBIS to approve
this, and then wait for EDA vendors to support it. It is critical that
when it is required to add information to a .ami file that a simulator
must use (e.g. a Model_Specific Info parameter), that the parameter be
published by submitting a BIRD to make it a Reserved_Parameters. The need
for this was described in the OpalT document, and in numerous IBIS-ATM
discussions. In the meantime EDA Vendors have the information they need to
support these advanced capabilities as their markets require them. This is
exactly what Sigrity and Gennum have done with their backchannel proposed
BIRD, and SiSoft will determine when the specification of backchannel is
firm enough, and then support it in our tool when our customers require
it.
Walter
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:54 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Table Clarification BIRD
If I remember correctly, we spent a considerable time
on this topic in the last ATM teleconference. In that
discussion I think I heard Walter state something
along the lines of who cares, the EDA tool just copies
everything to the parameter string for DLL and doesn't
need to know whether the first column is a row number
or useful data.
Then the question was raised, how about (Usage Info)
in which case the table is to be consumed by the tool,
and in that case the tool would have to know what the
first column is.
This brought us to the topic of syntax consistency and
ease of parsing, etc.
But this also raises another issue, namely whether the
Model_Specific parameters should ever be (Usage Info).
Note that this is not a problem with Reserved_Parameters,
which supposed to be well defined in the spec.
Comments?
Arpad
==========================================================
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 720.333-1107
Other related posts:
