IBIS Editorial Task Group Minutes
October 26, 2022

Attendees:
Intel Corp.             Michael Mirmak*
Mathworks               Walter Katz
Micron Technology       Randy Wolff*
Siemens EDA             Arpad Muranyi*, Weston Beal*
Teraspeed Labs          Bob Ross*


Minutes by Weston Beal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Patents: none

Review of Minutes:
  Minutes from October 19, 2022 were not reviewed. Weston sent the wrong file last week.


Review of Actions Required:
 - Michael asked the EDA tool vendor who violates the AMI_parameters_in 
   behavior of passing output into the parameter string if they are willing to 
   correct this in their tool. The replied that they are looking in to it.
   remains open


New Actions:

 
Agenda:
Arpad presented a slide summarizing the discussion of clock_times clarification
from the ATM task group. The slides show waveforms from GetWave function calls
to show data and clock waveforms and their time relationship. The primary topic
of the discussion is the clock_times data that overlaps the boundary between
subsequent GetWave calls. The key concept is that the GetWave function can
delay the waveform during processing and keep the past waveform data for its
effect on future processing. Arpad will rethink the description in the draft
BIRD based on this new understanding.

A possible new BIRD to address AMI_parameters_in clarification might hold up
the approval of IBIS version 7.2. What exactly needs to be passed from the EDA
tool to the AMI model? Michael noted that the word "shall" is used to describe
rules that the specification can control, and "should" is used to describe
rules that are strongly stated but cannot be controlled. The BIRD description
was edited to avoid any conflict with a BIRD about root_name.

Arpad made a motion to submit this AMI_parameters_in BIRD to the IBIS committee
for approval. Bob seconded the motion.

Michael reviewd the 7.2 task list status. Editorial updates are nearly all
included in draft3 except for BIRDs that are not yet complete. Changing the
drawing formats in the document reduced the file size to less than 3MB so we
can send the document through email.

There was a request from an IBIS user to review the use of "Required:." There
are 181 instances in the current specification. Most make sense. A few
qualification don't make sense. Can they be checked by the parser? The
definition or usage of Required field in keyword or parameter descriptions
needs to be defined and documented so the usage stays the same in the future.
This issue should not hold up specification 7.2.


Next Meeting Scheduled:
November 2, 2022

Arpad moved to adjourn.  Randy seconded.

Meeting adjourned at 8:59 a.m. PT.