================================================================================ 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 18, 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 16, 2019 meeting: Mike LaBonte moved to approve. Randy Wolff seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Mike to do a document comparison to check that Randy's previous comments are correctly fixed in the latest version. - Mike reported this is done. He confirmed the document we started with last meeting did have the latest updates. He also deleted all of the resolved comments. - Mike to add the Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity negative value issue to the known issues list. - Mike stated he can do this, but he has not yet, as it sounded it like Arpad Muranyi might be willing to write a BIRD to resolve the issue. Michael suggested that we should take this up in ATM, and it would be good to separate the known issues into editorial and technical. He asked if we want to have a single known issues list. Bob Ross suggested to have one known issues list for each version of the spec, as that has been our practice. Arpad stated the purpose of the known issues list is to have an errata, but we could classify issues as technical or editorial in the list. Mike proposed to defer this discussion and spend some time later to look at the known issues list in detail after we have finished Randy's comments. Opens: - None. Review of ver7_0_draft1_rrw.docx: Randy commented the first issue we should discuss is adding an introduction for Figures 49 and 50. Mike stated that he put together a short paragraph before the figures. He noted that these figures relate to Example 1 in the Interconnect Modeling section. Randy agreed the figures are relate to Example 1. Michael suggested to change the word "example" in the second sentence to "illustration". Arpad commented this looks good. Mike stated the next comment is on Example 3 on page 316. Randy commented the file location does not seem appropriate in this example. Bob noted we make reference to this on page 36, where we show that the Interconnect Model Set files can be in a different directory. Randy was concerned that a reader is not going to go back to page 36 to make the connection between these examples. Mike suggested to delete the example comment text related to the file reference. Bob agreed. Mike commented, on page 317, the number of pins should be 11 rather than 13. On page 322, Randy asked about the wording for Example 10. Mike suggested to delete the word "and". Michael agreed with this and asked about the underscore between A1 and A3. Arpad suggested to change it to "Terminals A1 through A3 are for...". Mike made this change. Randy suggested to add parenthesis on page 325 to Example 14. Michael also suggest to change the phrase "located as its" to the word "the". Michael asked how we want to maintain the change tracking in the document. Arpad suggested to accept everything and make a comparison document. Mike suggested to have have the differences relative to IBIS 6.1. Arpad suggested to make the difference document against the last draft. He added it is more useful for people who have already reviewed the draft of IBIS 7.0. Bob agreed. Mike noted anyone can do their own document compare between any set of documents. Michael asked how we maintained tracking for IBIS 6.1. Mike noted all of the IBIS 6.1 drafts had changes relative to IBIS 6.0. Randy suggested to post IBIS 7.0 with no markup and create two difference documents for each IBIS 6.1 and the previous IBIS 7.0 draft. Arpad agreed. Justin commented that there is a misspelling of "Rx_Reciver_Sensitivity" that should be "Rx_Receiver_Sensitivity". Mike corrected this. Bob asked about the open technical questions that are at the bottom of the meeting minutes, and noted the answers for both of the questions are "no" in his opinion. And, he plans to add checks for this to the parser specification, so the parser will flag these issues. Arpad commented we did add some text to partially address this, as it prohibits some conflicts. He stated that his original concern is resolved. Michael suggested to add these to the known issues list as potential clarifications. Bob noted that without [Pin Mapping] there is missing information for some Interconnect Models. Arpad moved to publish the latest document as Draft 2 of IBIS 7.0 and submit it to the IBIS Open Forum. Bob seconded. There were no objections. Mike stated he can post the working documents to the editorial task group page and send the final draft to the IBIS Open Forum [AR]. Michael to send out an announcement for Draft 2 of IBIS 7.0 [AR]. We agreed to postpone future meetings until further notice. Bob moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. 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?