Bob, Thanks for the additional details. I really don't want to belabor this conversation, because most of this is water under the bridge and it would probably not help in making progress in our real discussion goals. Some of the differences might come from the different intent and expectations we might have had at the time when BIRD 75 was written. From my perspective, those were the days when we started to "discover" that the power supply noise in the pre-drive and core stages were different from the supply noise in the output stage. The four I-V curve reference terminals of [Model] were not sufficient to account for all those effects when the device had different supply rails for I/O and core. Maybe this is why I had the expectation that [External Circuit] will come to the rescue with its unlimited terminals to the outside world. Either way, in light of the [External ***] syntax not being terribly popular, I think we should focus on finding better solutions. Thanks, Arpad ============================================================== -----Original Message----- From: ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-interconn-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Ross Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'IBIS-Interconnect'; 'IBIS-ATM' Subject: [ibis-interconn] Re: IBIS - Multi-lingual Earlier Presentation Arpad: We strongly differ in the expectation that everything regarding modeling would be handled by [External Circuit]. On the contrary, our expectation was that [External Model] under [Model] would support the more general IBIS buffer modeling solution. The language calls could be to actual SPICE buffer models or simplified behavioral representations available in SPICE. Also a standard IBIS buffer could be supported through the on-die interconnect structure through the reserved interconnection names. So in this sense, IBIS-ISS has unnecessary limitations for active buffer modeling over any of the broadly available SPICEs, and on-die interconnect is not supported even for a standard IBIS buffer. The fundamental difference is that if [External Circuit] is used, the functionality is unknown (except through some indirect reserved connections names) The threshold and test load information is not available). But the [External Circuit] could be used for any analog element (passive or active) as long as the drive connections were define externally or hard coded internally. So [External Circuit] is a more general element, but has less functionality than [External Model] under [Model] The connections would have been handled by the original [Circuit Call] descriptions. We already support cascading [External Circuit]s. The [Model Call] is now the proposed solution for [External Model]s, but [Circuit Call] could also be extended to include the [External Model] terminals as originally envisioned. The interconnect structure between [Model] and the on-die buffers was a fundamental and purposeful extension. By killing that and forcing [Model] to have direct connections to the die pads, we limited the functionality and possible official acceptance of multi-lingual modeling. Some vendors do have vendor-specific extensions that support on-die interconnect for models. So we have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of [External Circuit] and [External Model] with respect to buffer modeling. Bob --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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