================================================================================ IBIS EDITORIAL TASK GROUP http://www.ibis.org/editorial_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-editorial@freelists.org Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-editorial/ ================================================================================ Attendees from January 16, 2019 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff* SiSoft Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte* Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of minutes from the January 9, 2019 meeting: Mike LaBonte moved to approve. Randy Wolff seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - None. Opens: - None. Review of ver7_0_draft1_rrw.docx: Michael asked if we had posted the document used in the last meeting with all of the changes applied. Mike replied we did not, and he has a copy of that document. Randy noted the last change we reviewed was on page 70 (Simple Markup). Mike stated the next comment to review is on page 81. Mike was concerned that some of the comments from last time are still in the document. Mike will do a document comparison to check that Randy's previous comments are correctly fixed in the latest version [AR]. Randy commented, on page 81, the title for Figure 14 has the word "priority" rather than "polarity". Mike made this change and deleted the comment. Randy had also added a comma after the word "so" on page 91. And, there is similar comma addition on page 106. On page 117, there should be a comma after the word "also". Randy noted, at the bottom of page 123, an entire sentence is capitalized for emphasis. Mike made this sentence lower case. Arpad Muranyi asked if we want to call it a "simulation tool" or an "EDA tool" in this sentence. Michael preferred to keep this as is for now. Randy noted, on page 124, the word "important" is in all capital letters. Mike suggested to keep this as is. Arpad commented that we have a few instances of this. Randy stated, on page 127, the words "not" and "must" are in all capital letters. Mike suggested to make these lowercase italics. On page 140, Randy deleted the extra space in the sentence: "The EDA tool may provide additional means to the user to assign values to Parameters." On page 153, he made the sentences separated by two spaces. Arpad also noticed the sentence that starts with "The Golden Waveforms" needs a space before it. Randy commented, on page 161, the word "not" is capitalized. Mike asked if we still want emphasis for this. Arpad suggested to make it italics. On page 167, Randy noted the word "upper" is capitalized. Michael suggested to keep the emphasis with italics. Mike commented, on page 176, the phrase "unmated connector" is capitalized, and he made it lower case. Arpad agreed with this change. Michael noted there are numerous words in all capital letters on page 175, and he suggested to make these all lower case. Mike made these changes. Randy stated, on page 176, the word "must" should be lower case. Mike noted the word "keyword" should also be lower case. Michael suggested to change "must" to "shall" per our convention. Randy commented, on pages 189 and 190, there are some paragraph spacing issues. Mike fixed these and deleted the associated comment. Randy noted, at the bottom of page 208, he changed "1st" to "first". On page 216, the word "shall" should be changed to lowercase. On page 243, the word "not" is capitalized in two places. Arpad suggested to make these lowercase italics to keep the emphasis. Randy noted, on page 248, the sentence about the examples was not correct. Michael also noted the parenthesis are not in the correct place. Mike asked if Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity can be a negative value as is shown in the fourth example. Arpad replied that this is not correct. Michael thought we might need a BIRD to change this. Walter Katz agreed the example is incorrect, and the values should be positive only. Mike suggested a BIRD would be necessary to better define the meaning of the parameter. Arpad stated there may be some corresponding text elsewhere in the specification. Mike will add the Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity negative value issue to the known issues list [AR]. Bob Ross asked if this should be in the known issues list for IBIS 6.1. Mike suggested to add it to the known issues list for IBIS 7.0, since we will not be looking at the known issues list for IBIS 6.1 going forward. Walter agreed we should have a BIRD saying it should be a positive value. Mike changed the last example to remove the negative numbers and match the values of the third example. Randy commented, on page 292, there should be a specific figure reference. Mike added a figure cross reference. On page 293, Randy asked about the capitalization of the phrase "Interconnect Model". Michael agreed with capitalizing the first letter of "Interconnect Model". Randy suggested to make the Figure 47 picture bigger, so it is easier to read. Arpad suggested crop some of the white space on the right side to improve the centering. Randy also suggested the same change to Figure 48. Randy stated, on page 314, Figures 49 and 50 are not introduced. Mike suggested to defer this until the next meeting. We agreed to meet on Friday. Michael noted we do have two open technical questions that need to be classified. Randy noted are about 5 comments remaining. Mike asked if we want to post this document. Michael thought we do not need to but to send it to him. Bob agreed. Mike moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. The next meeting will take place Friday, January 18, at 8 AM Pacific. Open Technical Questions: 1. BIRD182: POWER and GND [Pin] signal_name as [Pin Mapping] bus_label a. Is a bus_label created even if we don't have [Pin Mapping], [Bus Label], or [Die Supply Pads] through the [Pin]? b. Is a bus_label short created for legacy package models based on the second column of [Pin] when we do not have a [Pin Mapping] entry?