Re: Connector spec swathing

Kellee,

Your point is well taken. For example, the user may be given
an option of choosing a time step. For larger time steps
different approximations can be made.

What I would like to see is an unambiguous definition of what
is expected (a prescription of how to use these models.) Each
vendor can then explain approximations that may be made that
deviate from this expected use in one way or another.

Thanks for the input. I'm modifying my position to agree
with yours better.

Chris

Kellee Crisafulli wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I am having great difficultly understanding why
> all the simulators should be forced to use the same method.
>
> This is an approximate approach in the first place. If one
> simulator wants to use a method that runs 100,000 times faster
> than another with a 1% accuracy reduction than it should
> be able to do that.
>
> I feel the data must be unambiguous. The method should be
> open to the simulator experts. I do think it reasonable to
> provide one example method either as a description or as
> code implemented in the IBIS parser. Perhaps a full matrix
> extraction would make the most sense but I can hardly imagine
> most simulators wanting to simulate a series of 10 matrices
> each 1000 by 1000 just to get 2 coupled signals simulated.
>
> I do not feel all simulators should use the same method. I
> feel most simulators may even want to use different methods
> depending on the simulation needs.
>
> At 01:11 PM 6/14/00 -0700, Christopher Reid wrote:
> >Gus,
> >
> >I don't consider any of this proprietary. I think its more important
> >that its unambiguous so there is confidence that the intention of the
> >connector vendors is followed when using the models. Every simulator
> >should use the same method.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >apanella@molex.com wrote:
> > >
> > > So then, the recommendation would be to have the IBIS Connector Model
> > > Specification _explicitly_ state how each simulator will implement the
> > expansion
> > > from the keywords and parameters already given in the specification.
> > >
> > > If the recommendation is acceptable (it is for me)... Would it be
> > acceptable by
> > > the simulator companies? If not.. is there a different option?
> > >
> > > In the discussion of this topic in the subcommittee, I got the
> > impression that
> > > the expansion method of matrices was somewhat seen as a proprietary
> > technology.
> > > As such, I wanted to build in enough keywords and usage rules that
> > would allow
> > > me to assign values that would _lessen_ the likelihood of incorrect
> > simulator
> > > implementation (assuming of course that I correctly defined the model,
> > swath
> > > size, and related keywords...)
> > >
> > > I will take this up at our next IBIS Connector Model subcommittee
> > > teleconference.
> > >
> > > _gus: 630-527-4617
> > >
> > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> > > Subject: Re: Connector spec swathing
> > > Author: chris <chris_reid@mentorg.com>
> > > Date: 6/14/00 9:13 AM
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your illustration of my point. Clearly we have
> > > exactly the same concern.
> > >
> > > Gus,
> > >
> > > Yes, including the larger matrix that is supposed to be expandable
> > > to a full banded matrix would be useful, but it should also include
> > > instructions on just how that smaller matrix is supposed to be used
> > > to get the full banded matrix.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > <SNIP>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Have a great day....
> Kellee Crisafulli
> HyperLynx, a division of Pads Software Inc.
> SI,EMC,X-talk and IBIS tools
> E-mail: <mailto:kellee@hyperlynx.com>
> web: <http://www.hyperlynx.com>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jun 14 14:04:18 2000