Re: needed for IBIS V3.1

Steve:

We will put this discussion topic on the meeting Agenda. Thank you for
proposing it. I am also concerned about the amount of material in IBIS
and the fact that the fundamental aspects of IBIS are no longer apparent.
The new features in IBIS are all justified, based on real device modeling
issues. However, most IBIS models will still need to follow only the
guidelines and convensions of IBIS Versions 1.1 and 2.1. Having a set
of examples is an excellent starting point to illustrate both the
recommended fundamental aspects of IBIS models which apply to most
situations, and also to illustrate the new functionality.

I am also interested in ideas on how we can organize IBIS in a clearer
manner.

Bob Ross
Interconnectix

> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 18:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ibis@vhdl.org
> From: Steve Kaufer <stevek@hyperlynx.com>
> Subject: needed for IBIS V3.1

> Mini-topic for the upcoming IBIS Summit meeting at DAC:

> I believe it's important for V3.1 of the specification to include several
> simple, clear example files, e.g., a simple IC using a minimum of
> constructs, a more-complex IC using a few "extra" features like waveform
> tables, a network-packaged passive device, and a bus switch.

> Why? Because lacking these, the specification is so intimidating to
> newcomers that many are being scared off, to the detriment of the entire
> standard. Remember V1.x? It was a relatively quick, easily comprehended
> "read." What we have now is richer and more powerful, but also exponentially
> more confusing. Some of us on the committee are probably "velocitized" to
> the point where we're not aware of the problem's gravity.

> >From recent conversations with IBIS "newbies" (and this includes
> semiconductor-vendor personnel, unfortunately), I think it works like this:

> 1. Reads IBIS spec (or part of it).
> 2. Wants to kill self.
> 3. Hears about Spice-to-IBIS, and thinks "that's my only hope!"
> 4. Then the real trouble begins...

> Personally, I'd like to see the opening page of the spec state clearly that
> about 85% of modeling applications can use about 25% of the specification's
> constructs, and point straight to the example models. Also good would be a
> designation of some kind delineating between "basic" and "luxury" constructs.

> I'd be interested in hearing opinions about this at the Summit...

> Regards,

> Steve Kaufer,
> HyperLynx

 
Received on Fri Jun 6 10:09:55 1997