================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ================================================================================ Attendees from April 25, 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* Mike LaBonte convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Mike called for review of the minutes from the April 18 meeting. Bob Ross commented that he had stated the word "token" does not exist in IBIS 6.1. Randy Wolff moved to approve the minutes with this correction. Bob seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael to send out the BIRD189.5_draft18_v8, and unless any objections are submitted over email, he will send BIRD189.5 as a formal submission on Friday. - Mike noted that BIRD189.5_draft18_v8 was sent out. An objection was raised over email, so the BIRD was not submitted to the Open Forum. Opens: - None BIRD189.5_draft18_v9 Review: Mike noted he performed a document comparison between version 8 and version 9, and the only change is the paragraph which was agreed to be removed at the ATM meeting. Arpad Muranyi stated we are done with this version of the draft, and now the decision is up to this group if we want to submit BIRD189.5. Mike asked if we are ready to submit. Arpad moved to submit the current draft of BIRD189.5 to the IBIS Open Forum. Walter Katz seconded the motion. There were no objections. Mike will send out the submission of the final BIRD189.5 to the Interconnect mailing list [AR]. Arpad asked what kind of change tracking we will see in the final draft of the BIRD. He suggested to create a difference document between BIRD189.4 and BIRD189.5. Mike replied that this is what he plans to do. Walter noted we will bring up BIRD189.5 in the next Open Forum meeting, and it could be eligible for a vote in the following meeting. He thought Bob would object to not having the rail rule discussion first. Walter asked if there are any other objections regarding the BIRD. Bob agreed that he would like to discuss the rail rules. Bob noted he does have one additional technical issue. Mike noted that we should get these technical changes on the agenda. Bob noted he objects to the rail rule where we exclude the possibility of different PDN models in a Group. If we adopt the rail rule relaxations, then this issue is resolved. Walter thought this issue falls under the rail rule discussion, and he asked if there are any other issues with BIRD189.5. Bob noted the three classes of pins section is repetitive with other text in the BIRD, and we could possibly remove some of this section. Mike commented that this is an editorial task. Walter stated that when we submit BIRD189.5 to the Open Forum, we can say these are the remaining open issues. The first is the rail rules, and this may result in a BIRD189.6. And, the second is that there may be some redundant text. Walter moved that we should stick to these two items as the agenda list, unless a vote is held to add a new item. Mike clarified this would be procedural motion. Arpad noted that Michael Mirmak already has a statement discouraging new "open" topics in the agenda notices. Mike agreed that we should stick to the these two open items for discussion. Walter suggested for Mike and Michael to discuss how to best proceed. Walter withdrew the motion. Mike asked if we should discuss the rail rules. Walter stated he would like to see a written document draft first. Bob noted he plans to make some tweaks to what he submitted previously. Mike asked Bob to prepare a BIRD189.6 draft with the proposed rail rule changes [AR]. Walter noted he would like to discuss his referencing schematic. Mike commented this might be a better topic to take up in ATM. Randy asked if he could get some examples showing how the rail rule relaxation would be useful. Mike agreed that this would help the discussion. Randy stated that the decoupling circuit is one example, but he would like to see if there are more cases. Walter stated he provided some examples of where Bob's rules are problematic. He can represent these examples for the discussion. Bob noted that he is proposing to mimic spice, and if tools can understand spice, there should be no confusion. Walter stated that Bob's rules will allow indeterminate PDN models. Mike asked if we want to have a meeting on Friday and if Bob would be ready with a draft of the rail rules by then. Bob thought he could be ready. Mike suggested to not have a meeting on Friday, as the rail rule change and redundant text are the only agenda items to discuss. We can take these items up on Wednesday next week. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be May 2. Walter moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. Task List BIRD189.5 editorial additions/changes to be completed: 1. Resolve inconsistency with using node 0 and node "0" by replacing with "node 0".