================================================================================ 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 October 23, 2018 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 October 19 meeting: Mike LaBonte moved to approve. Arpad Muranyi seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Bob Ross to propose new text for the last sentence of the Tx-only introduction. - Bob reported this is done. Michael stated we can review this today. - Michael to send the latest IBIS 7.0 draft and checklist. - Michael reported this is done. Opens: - None. Editorial review of ver7_0_181023.docx and the task checklist: Michael reviewed there are remaining checklist items regarding the reorganization, redundant text, and summary tables. Since the last meeting, he corrected the title capitalization issues. There are some section titles that show up as all capitals in the text, as these are set by the style in Word. We still need to address the redundant text and the additional text proposed by Bob. Arpad asked if any numbering was added and mentioned he does not see numbering on the Section 10.2 hierarchy. Michael noted that we shuffled the Jitter and Noise sections, which only focused on 10.6. Section 10.2 has not been changed. We can add numbering to these section titles, but there are some others we need to discuss. Michael stated, in the Tx-Only Reserved Parameters section, Bob had proposed some text for the last sentence of the introduction. Michael reviewed the issue was on the meaning of when the parameter is not present. Bob stated he wants to be explicit. Arpad commented if the jitter parameter is not present the EDA tool can add the jitter from the user, but stating a value of zero means there is no jitter in the device. Walter Katz commented that the jitter parameters allow the EDA tools to add jitter, and he thought we should not have to change anything. Michael stated the question is if the sentence is valid. Walter thought it is, and it does not mean you cannot add jitter outside of the model. Bob proposed changing the text slightly to add the phrase "clock centered". Arpad asked about the meaning of the phrase "clock centered". Michael stated "clock centered" is referenced in the table as the default for Rx_Clock_PDF. Bob stated he wanted to cover the case of Rx_Clock_PDF. Arpad commented we do not define "clock centered" in the text. Walter stated we have lots of clock jitter parameters and Rx_Clock_PDF is one of them. If there is no value, the parameter does not apply. Michael asked if we want to put a footnote to express this. Bob agreed. Michael added this footnote to the bottom of Tables 24 and 34. Michael asked how we should change the default when it is not specified. Bob thought that we could clarify the text he sent by stating what default means. Radek Biernacki proposed to use the phrase "default behavior". Michael changed the text that Bob proposed to add the phrase "default behavior". Michael stated we never define "clock centered". Walter noted it is where you are sampling, and there are multiple ways of selecting the sampling point for the clock at the latch. Michael asked if we want to change "clock centered" to a different phrase. Arpad proposed to say "None" instead of "clock centered". Michael changed this in both Tables 24 and 34. He also changed the Rx-Only Reserved Parameters text. Arpad asked if we should list all of the possible default values in this text. Radek proposed to remove both "None" and "0". Michael agreed and made this change. Michael noted that we have a similar issue for the Tx-Only Reserved Parameters. Bob suggested to make this text its own paragraph. Arpad suggested to copy the sentence from the Rx and change the table numbers. Michael made this change and noted only Table 34 lists the defaults for the Tx parameters. Walter asked if we should delete the default column from the tables. Bob replied there is value in the default column, as some parameters do not define their default. Walter commented he prefers to say "NA" as the default for all jitter parameters. Bob stated he prefers to keep it as we have it. Michael added a checklist item to examine all reserved parameter defaults. Bob stated he would be careful with "NA", as we use it elsewhere in IBIS. Michael stated we still have an issue with the redundant text for the Receiver Recovered Clock Reserved Parameters. He proposed to delete the second paragraph. Arpad agreed with this change. We marked checklist item 57 as verified. Michael noted checklist item 58 is on the AMI parameter table numbering. In Section 10.2, we also have sections that are not numbered. Radek thought it is okay to add the numbers. Arpad commented we might not want to have numbering too deep. Bob thought we can try out the numbering and see how it looks. Michael noted the Repeater section has some unnumbered sections. In Section 10.9, we also have some headers not in the hierarchy. Michael asked if we need to number these. Bob thought that we should. Walter proposed to leave the numbering up to Michael's judgment as editor. Bob agreed and noted we can review it afterwards. Michael stated he can make the changes to the numbering [AR]. Michael noted he would like to close out the remaining known issues and decide on the order of the finalization steps next. Michael will send out the latest draft and checklist [AR]. Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. The next meeting will take place Wednesday, October 24, 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?