Walter,
Just so that it is in writing, I would like to repeat my verbal comments I made
in
the Open Forum Teleconference today.
On slide 5 you state that
"Both statistical and time domain simulations are correct with BIRD 166 if all
AMI Models (except Rx2) are Dual Models."
On the same slide you also state that Fangyi's proposal will work correctly,
but only for new models, and legacy models will continue to give the wrong
answer:
"If AMI_Init functions are not enhanced, the flows are the same as in 6.1, and
therefore continue to give the wrong"
Yet, on the last slide, you conclude that Fangyi's proposal will give the
wrong answer while BIRD166 will give the correct answer. This conclusion
seems to be deliberately biased towards your proposal (BIRD166) by using
the wrong half of the truth (facts) from your earlier statements. Please be
honest, consistent and objective on your slides and make fair comparisons,
and conclusions. According to slide 5, your proposal will only give the correct
answers for all situations when we have dual models. Not all legacy models
are dual models, therefore your proposal will NOT give the correct answer
in all situations.
In this sense both proposals require new models to be written. On slide 5
you also claim that
"A Model Maker can make a Dual Model as easily as modifying the AMI_Init
function to read and write the additional Impulse Responses required by
Fangyi's BIRD."
So why do you use this to justify that your proposal can be made work for all
cases, while you are dismissing Fangyi's proposal for the reason that it
requires
new models to be written? By the way, in ATM discussions it was made clear
by several people that there are model makers who will NOT agree to write
dual models. Also, I was told by several model makers that they will NOT go
back to their old models to re-release them (even when the model had obvious
bugs or similar issues). Once a device is released, most if not all IC vendors
go
on to work on their new products, and they simply do not go back to do more
work on their older products.
Please note that I don't dispute facts in your slides (as long as they are
correct
mathematically), but I am outraged by your biased conclusions...
Thanks,
Arpad
==================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Walter Katz
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 1:14 PM
To: IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Open Forum Presentation
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
All,
IBIS_6.1_BIRD_190_BIRD_Fangyi_BIRD_166.pdf
Walter
Walter Katz
wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone 303.449-2308
Mobile 303.335-6156
