================================================================================ 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 30, 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 26 meeting: Michael noted a revised set of minutes was sent out. Bob Ross moved to approve. Arpad Muranyi seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to add headings and numbering to Section 6. - Michael reported this is done, and we can review it today. - Michael to change the Required column to "(Yes)" for conditionally required Reserved Parameters and add appropriate footnotes. - Michael reported that this is not yet done, as he would like to do these edits live. - Michael to send the latest IBIS 7.0 draft and checklist. - Michael reported this is done and thanked Mike LaBonte for posting. Opens: - Michael noted there are some issues in Section 1, due to significant changes made to the section organization and ordering. This makes maintaining Section 1 difficult. Editorial review of ver7_0_181030.docx and the task checklist: Michael noted the current version of the document now has the sections numbered down to three levels of the hierarchy. The sections below the third level will not appear in the Table of Contents. He asked if this is the desired numbering. Bob thought that this is okay, as long as we do not have indentation issues. Michael showed one of the fourth level subsection headings and asked if the indentation is okay. Bob suggested to not indent these fourth level headings. Mike suggested to better offset these headings, as they look very similar to the third level headings. Michael noted the only difference between the level three and level four headings is the level three is bold. He suggested we can reduce the text size of the fourth level headings. Bob suggested to make the text smaller and bold. Radek Biernacki asked about adding an empty line after the heading. Mike suggested to adjust the paragraph spacing rather than adding line feeds. Bob commented we still have some line feed issues. Michael added a checklist item to check the paragraph spacing. Michael asked if we can call checklist item 1 done. Bob thought that we can mark this as done. He commented we should add a checklist item about the Section 1 reorganization. Michael marked checklist item 1 as verified. He added a checklist item for the Section 1 changes. Michael noted Section 1 is the General Introduction, and we state the features added in each version of IBIS. We have changed many of the section numbers. Michael asked if we want to preserve the history of what the sections were labeled previously. Radek thought it is okay to not include the previous section numbering. Bob agreed we can remove the historic section numbering. Radek suggested to say "the content of the section" rather than "the section" in these cases. Michael agreed with this. Michael will remove the historical section numbering in Section 1 [AR]. Michael noted the summary tables should now be complete in terms of the new Reserved Parameters. The exception is the Default parameter values. There is also a question on how to handle the Required column for parameters, such as BCI_ID, which are required when BCI_Protocol is used. The proposal from the last meeting was to have "(Yes)" with a footnote for these. Walter Katz thought this is a good idea. He would like to have separate footnotes specifying the conditions. Bob agreed. Michael made this change for the BCI parameters. Walter asked if the BCI_Protocol parameter should be listed as required. Radek replied this should be "No", as it is not required. Michael asked about the PAM4 parameters and if these become required for PAM4. Walter stated this is not the case. Radek noted Repeater_Type is another conditionally required parameter when [Repeater Pin] is present. Michael added a footnote for this. Walter commented that the Ts4file leads to some other required parameters. Michael added another footnote for Tx_V. Bob suggested for the Ts4file footnote to specify Tx models. Michael took an AR to copy the conditionally required parameter changes to the other appropriate tables [AR]. Walter suggested to change to "No Tx_Jitter" as the default for Tx_Jitter instead of "No Jitter". Radek suggested to say "None". Walter agreed. Bob noted, in many cases, the double dash ("--") is used for for the default of required parameters. Michael stated there are cases where we use double dash for optional parameters. He suggested to change some of these to "None". Radek suggested to change the default for Model_Name to "None". Michael asked about the defaults for the PAM4_UpperThreshold and PAM4_LowerThreshold parameters. Walter replied double dash is okay for these. Arpad agreed. Michael asked what the default should be for Rx_clock_PDF and the Rx_clock parameters. Walther thought "None" would be okay for these. Arpad asked if double dash would be more appropriate. After some discussion about the meaning of double dash and "None" as parameter defaults, Arpad suggested that the double dash would be better for the Rx_clock parameter defaults, as these are more like undefined. Michael suggested to add a footnote stating None means None Defined. He changed the Rx_Clock parameters default to None. Arpad suggested to also define the double dash in an addition footnote. Radek moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. The next meeting will take place Wednesday, October 31, 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?