(attaching a text version of the minutes for ease of archiving) ====================================================================== 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 May 6 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Cisco David Siadat Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki* Mentor Graphics Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield, Randy Wolff* SAE ITC Maureen Lemankiewicz, Logen Johnson Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz, Mike LaBonte* Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* University of Aveiro in Portugal Wael Dghais Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Mike LaBonte moved to approve the minutes of the April 22 meeting. Bob Ross seconded. No objections were raised and the minutes were approved. Mike suggested an open, brief discussion of when to create a draft IBIS 6.2. He noted that other BIRDs are possible. Bob replied that we need to know what we’re doing first. Michael asked whether the next release should be 6.2 or 7.0. Radek stated that he was assuming that the Interconnect BIRD would be part of 7.0, but the reference BIRD is also relevant to the discussion. He does not know of any others. Bob noted that one approved BIRD should be added, BIRD 179. Mike asked whether the parser will be affected and if it is funded. Bob replied that funds are not a problem. Michael asked whether parser changes would be needed for referencing. Radek replied that keyword changes may require some parser changes. Michael asked when the cutoff for the next version should be set. Bob suggested that it should be after the Pin Reference BIRD and BIRD 179. Radek added that BIRD 179 is not related to cleanup but could be part of minor release; he noted that the re-driver flow and backchannel BIRDs are both slowly getting ready. Arpad Muranyi noted that that he wouldn’t mind if the backchannel and Interconnect BIRDs were in two separate releases; backchannel will take some time. He would rather release a new version right away if Interconnect is ready. Mike stated that 7.0 may be ready before 6.2 is ready. 7.1 might have backchannel support. Arpad noted that it is tough to integrate large features together; models and tool vendor support may not be in sync. Major version numbers are a proxy for new big features. Radek observed that 6.2 was supposed to be cleanup for references. BIRD 179 is not critical for 6.2. Bob would like a bit of parser change to justify a parser version change. The workload is referencing, terminology, and terminology conventions (including cases where we interchange the formal name and the content). Mike asked for examples of this. Michael noted that the [* Reference] keywords and [Voltage Range] rail vs. value need clarification. Bob added Interconnect specification syntax item #15 in Mike’s list needs addressing. No timeline can be established until the full scope is understood. The team turned to reviewing the new reference paragraphs. Bob & Radek agreed on removing the first paragraph. The team then engaged in “live” editing of the reference document. Radek used an analogy for the document approach – if a given node is a reference node, other nodes are measured vs. this node. Voltage measured “at” this node is 0 V with respect to zero node of the simulator. Michael asked whether the voltage is zero or voltage is meaningless. Mike suggested this is a “no-op”. Arpad added that a reference doesn’t have a voltage, by definition. Radek disagreed; a short circuit makes two nodes into the same node. We have to avoid mixing the reference node for the buffer and the reference node for the simulator. Bob stated that the issue is that [Pullup Reference], etc. *were* originally defined with respect to the simulator reference. Leaving the reference node ambiguous may cause a problem in DUT assumption. He suggested that [Pin Reference] is a “handle” for the reference of the particular device of interest, for the purposes of DIA. Radek replied that the document should use specific SPICE node 0 language. Mike added that it was the original, easiest assumption. Radek noted that the assumption was implicit not explicit. Arpad advised being careful about past tense usage, as this assumption may still be active. Editing will continue in the next meeting. Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.