================================================================================ 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 December 18, 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 December 14 meeting: Arpad Muranyi moved to approve. Mike LaBonte seconded. Minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Mike to send out the latest draft and checklist. - Mike reported he has not yet sent out the latest documents, but he will do so. Michael asked if there were any updates to the IBIS 7.0 Draft Known Issues document. Mike replied there were not. Bob Ross commented there were a few other questions on the vertical spacing that we need to address. - Mike to send out a prototype document with the styles for keywords and parameters. - Mike reported he did not do this, as he is thinking of deferring this topic. Michael agreed we can defer this. Opens: - Arpad sent some emails about a few issues. One issue is an inconsistency between two paragraphs, and the other issue is an ambiguity in two places. IBIS 7.0 Draft Known Issues list review: Michael shared the list of known issues for the IBIS 7.0 draft. We plan to review these and decide if they need to be addressed now or deferred to an IBIS 7.1 for instance. Mike stated he as already pushed for a few issues to be fixed in IBIS 7.0. He suggested that these are not necessarily known issues but items for discussion. And, we could rename the document. Michael asked if we can defer the entire list or if we should go through them one by one. Bob suggested to discuss each issue one by one. Michael suggested to defer item 1. Bob suggested to defer items 2 and 3. Arpad suggested to defer item 4. Michael commented item 5 is proposing to reorganize Section 3.2. Mike suggested to defer this. Bob agreed. Mike commented that item 6 would require a BIRD to change. Michael noted the issue is that the list of reserved model names which are prohibited does not include CIRCUITCALL. Bob stated this would require some discussion, as he was not sure if CIRCUITCALL should be added. Mike suggested to defer this item. Mike commented item 7 is a forward reference in the [Series Pin Mapping] description. Mike suggested to add a reference to the [Series Switch Groups]. Bob agreed. Michael made this change in the current draft. We marked item 7 as resolved. Michael stated item 8 is on a [Series Pin Mapping] keyword clarification. Mike suggested this might require a BIRD. Bob stated we can defer this issue. Michael commented item 9 is regarding the phrase "the parser", and he suggested to defer this, as we would have to carefully review this and possibly rewrite some sections. Bob agreed and noted we do not specify what the parser checks. Michael suggested to defer items 10 and 11 which also relate to the phrase "the parser". Mike suggested to defer item 12. Michael commented item 13 is on Rref and Cref for [Diff Pin]. Bob suggested to defer this as changing it would require a BIRD. Arpad added there are other similar issues. Bob commented there could be a potential parser bug related to this. Mike stated item 14 is a clarification about model timing. Michael thought this is an editorial change we could make. Arpad and Bob agreed with changing it. Michael made this change in the current draft. Michael stated item 15 is a clarification on Aggressor_Only to add the phrase "victim of coupling". Radek Biernacki suggested to change the text to say it is an aggressor. Mike agreed with this. We marked item 15 as complete. Michael noted item 16 is on [Driver Schedule] and would take some wordsmithing to fix. He suggested to defer this. Bob agreed. Michael stated item 17 is on [Voltage Range]. Mike suggested to defer this. Michael stated item 18 is for [Pulldown] and [Pullup] keywords and relates to the parser. Mike suggested to defer this, as it would require some discussion. Bob suggested to defer item 19 regarding the organization of [Add Submodel] and Section 6.2. Mike suggested to defer item 20. Mike commented, for item 21, we only give the month and the year for some IBIS versions in Section 1. Arpad suggested to make these consistent. Michael will add the days for when each of the IBIS versions were approved [AR]. Mike suggested to defer item 22 on adding column headers in the examples, as this would take significant work. Michael stated item 23 is on headings in the [Path Description] section. Bob had some concerns about changing this. Mike suggested to include this as part of the style guide discussion. We agreed to meet on Wednesday this week. Michael asked if there are additional items in the checklist that can be addressed. Mike suggested to mark item 81 as complete, since we resolved this in the last meeting. We marked this as verified. Michael asked about item 85. Mike suggested this should be the very last item, with the task to go through page by page and check the page breaks after the dates have been entered. Mike commented, regarding item 91, he had proposed to replace the blank lines with styles, but this is currently consistent. Arpad suggested to add this to the draft known issues list. Michael will send Mike the latest checklist for posting [AR]. Mike moved to adjourn. Bob seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. The next meeting will take place Wednesday, December 19, 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?