======================================================================
IBIS INTERCONNECT MODELING AD HOC TASK GROUP MEETING MINUTES AND AGENDA

http://www.eda.org/ibis/adhoc/interconnect/

Mailing list: ibis-interconn@freelists.org

======================================================================
Next Meeting
February 27, 2008

               Telephone     Bridge   Passcode
              916-356-2663     5      709-0665

Agenda:
- Discussion of Touchstone 2.0 changes & proposal for mixed-mode format
- IIRD9 status

======================================================================

Minutes from January 30:

Attendees:
----------
(* denotes present)
Agilent                    - Radek Biernacki*, John Moore
Cadence Design Systems     - Terry Jernberg
Green Streak Programs      - Lynne Green
Intel                      - Michael Mirmak*
Mentor Graphics Corp.      - John Angulo*
Micron Technology          - Randy Wolff*
Signal Integrity Software  - Walter Katz*
Sigrity                    - Sam Chitwood*
Teraspeed Consulting Group - Bob Ross*

========================================================================
No patents were declared.

The team continued discussing the draft IBIS-ICM linking BIRD.

Bob Ross suggested that overloading of power/ground pads in ICM is not 
needed. Simply forcing the use of [Pin Mapping] under IBIS for use with
ICM would be sufficient to unambiguously connect powers and grounds.
Bob also suggested that nodes for external package connections should be 
identified with an additional keyword.  He observed that node 4a and 4b 
as shown in Figure 12 need to be addressed with a specific example of ICM
linking.  Further, he advised avoiding using the [Pin Mapping] rail name
in ICM, but simply using the *pin* name from IBIS on both ICM sides.

John Angulo expressed concern about the connectivity of power/ground 
nets with the 1:1 pad-pin assumption, but agreed that [Pin Mapping] 
rules best preserved explicit connections.  Both John and Bob noted
that 1:1 assumptions apply to power and ground rails as well as signals.

Sam added that we cannot use [Pin] package information in the current [Pin
Mapping] context, as we cannot realistically assume RLC information is 
useful or accurate for individual power/ground pins.

Michael accepted several ARs:
- add Tree Path examples to the ICM-IBIS linking example model set
- permit only [Pin Mapping] examples where ICM is used
- check on any restrictions in ICM linking forced by BIRD98
- include drawings or other illustrations of the connections
- explicitly treat nodes 4a, 4b from Fig. 12, instead of using just
  a 1:1 example for [Circuit Call] links to ICM

Bob reiterated his request for an explicit keyword naming pads for 
external connections.

========================================================================

Team Objectives:
1) complete ICM-IBIS linking BIRD and any associated changes to the 
   ICM specification
2) update the ICM specification, if needed, to clarify the mapping of 
   ICM nodes to S-parameter ports
3) complete a specification for "Touchstone Plus" or similar 
   industry-standard definition for Touchstone-like files, to include 
   complex impedance references, removal of limits on the maximum number
   of ports and per-port impedance references