================================================================================ 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 24, 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 23 meeting: Bob Ross moved to approve. Mike LaBonte seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to correct the section numbering. - Michael reported that he has made the section numbering more consistent. He noted that there are some issues we need to discuss. - Michael to send the latest IBIS 7.0 draft and checklist. - Michael reported this is done. Opens: - Bob asked if we need to review the Model Specific section, as this was changed. Michael stated we will review this section and its location. - Michael noted there are a couple of open technical questions we need to consider. Editorial review of ver7_0_181024.docx and the task checklist: Michael noted the Model Specific parameters definitions are now a new Section 10.11 located before the Summary Tables Section. He commented that there was no change to the text and only the headers have changed. Bob stated he agreed with the changes, but he noticed Model Specific shows up in the examples in Section 10.3. This was a problem in IBIS 6.1, as the example is given before things are defined. Michael stated the question is if Section 10.11 needs to be moved upward. Bob asked if there are Reserved Parameters in Section 10.3. Michael noted the first instance of Model Specific and Reserved parameters is in Section 10.2 in the example. Bob stated there should be Model Specific and Reserved parameters in the Multi-lingual section as well. Arpad Muranyi asked if the Model Specific parameters need to be in the example. Michael noted the example is in the reference flow section and talks about the overall AMI flow. He thought the example could be moved. Mike suggested to add a forward reference after the example. Bob agreed with this. Arpad suggested to add a sentence after the example stating the syntax and parameters are defined below. Michael added this sentence. Mike agreed with this. Michael also noted he sent a technical question about the example to reflector. Michael stated he has assigned styles to the headers, and they will now show up in the Table of Contents. He noted there may still be some issues further down in the hierarchy. Only two levels deep are now numbered. This is set by the style sheet of the Word document. Michael commented that it is possible to change these headings to add the numbers to levels further down, but it is now consistent. Mike was concerned about the capitalization of some of the headings. He also thought the numbering can be useful for referencing and discussion different sections. Arpad suggested to have numbers down to three levels and no further. Bob commented it looks clean with two levels but three levels might be okay. Bob was concerned about the consistency of which sections are labeled. We have Introductions and Keyword Definitions which standout now. Michael noted the one exception is, in the Package Modeling section, we have Section 7.3 which is titled Keywords for Use with [Package Model]. Michael suggested to keep the current organization and to add numbers at three levels deep. Arpad suggested to change the Section 7.3 title to Keyword Definitions. Michael agreed. Bob stated the tables of parameters are still an issue. Michael noted these tables start in Section 10.4 and are present in each of the Reserved Parameter sections. The question from the checklist is if we want the tables as separate subsections. Bob thought that this would be good. He noted that some of the tables are interactions of parameters. Mike commented that adding a heading for the table sections would be good, and he has verified that these tables are at the end of each of the sections. Michael asked about what the name of the table subsections should be. Bob suggested to call them Summary Tables as the section numbering should indicate where the tables apply. Michael noted that all of the table sections are the same types of tables except for section 10.12 which has the same three types of tables plus additional summary tables. Mike suggested to give the table sections the title: "Summary Tables for Usage, Type and Format". Michael agreed and noted a typo in the title of Table 27. Michael asked if Table 17 is okay in the middle of the text. Bob noted Table 17 is discussing the interactions between the data types and formats. Mike suggested to leave Table 17 where it is at. Bob agreed. Bob asked if we want to include a heading in the hierarchy for Table 17. Michael asked what hierarchy level this would be and noted that the table summarizes rules in the preceding sections. Michael asked if we should move this table section to the end of section 10.3. Mike and Bob agreed. Michael stated he will check the summary tables section titles. 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 Friday, October 26, 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?