[ibis-macro] IMPORTANT question about IBIS-AMI keywords
- From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:47:53 -0800
Hello everyone,
We raised a couple of important questions in the IBIS-ATM
teleconference yesterday, and we decided to post them on
this email reflector so that everyone following the IBIS-AMI
work could have their say in the decision we are about to
make. (This means we are asking for your vote on this topic).
As you may all know, we are currently in the process of
writing a BIRD for the AMI portions of the IBIS 5.0
specification to correct a few problems that slipped in.
Some of these corrections involve syntax rules regarding
the keywords in question. We have several options on how
we could deal with the cleanup effort, but not all are
equally elegant. The two opposite poles of the possible
solutions are backward compatibility vs. a clean specification.
Choosing the former may raise obstacles in the future, but
going with the latter could prevent existing models to
work under the fixed specification. The middle ground
of retaining backwards compatibility while supporting
the better solution can get ugly in the specification and
may raise lots of questions by new model makers who may
not be able to figure out why the syntax rules are so
complicated.
The rules of the two keywords which we are asking about
simply cannot be fixed cleanly without eliminating them
from the spec, but that would break compatibility.
Other options may just make the specification messy.
So we would like to get your vote on the following two
keywords. Please reply to this message with your vote
(privately or openly) before the next ATM teleconference
which will be on December 15, 2009. Feel free to ask
questions if you don't understand the problem, but
please be concise, as we have already spent significant
amounts of time in the teleconferences discussing these
topics. We need two answers, one of 1a, 1b, 1c and one
of 2a, 2b, 2c.
1a) Shall we retain Model_Specific and Reserved_Parameter
branches as required?
1b) Shall we retain Model_Specific and Reserved_Parameter
branches but not make them required?
1c) Shall we remove Model_Specific and Reserved_Parameter
branches from the AMI specification?
2a) Shall Format continue to be required, as specified?
2b) Shall we retain Format but not make it required?
2c) Shall we remove Format from the AMI specification?
Thanks in advance,
Arpad
============================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
