David,
The words “understand the re-driver model standard” caught my eyes in your
message,
because I sent an email to this email reflector as well as the SI-List
reflector in recent weeks
to solicit feedback on the question whether anyone who makes Repeater products
and
makes IBIS models for them would express their opinion whether the IBIS
specification
needs to be corrected, and if yes, how that would be best done (with BIRD166
and BIRD190
in mind).
http://www.ibis.org/birds/bird166.4.docx
http://www.ibis.org/birds/bird190.docx
So far I did not receive a single response, which made me think that people
were not using
these features of the specification, consequently there was no need for making
corrections
in it. However, your post seems to indicate that there are vendors who might
be using these
features in the IBIS specification, and if this is true, I would like to repeat
my request that we
would like to hear from them regarding this topic, so that we could make the
appropriate
decisions on how to correct the specification in this area.
Thanks,
Arpad
=======================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of David Banas
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:30 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Potential job making IBIS-AMI models at a photonics
interconnect company.
Hi all,
If you’re interested in a position making IBIS-AMI models for photonic
interconnects, would you please contact me privately? I know of an opening. I
spent the day interviewing with them, a short while ago, and they’re for real.
In order to be taken seriously for this position, you should:
1. understand the re-driver model standard, and
2. how its limitations affect its applicability to photonics interconnect
modeling.
Thanks,
-db
