================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ibis.org_interconnect-5Fwip_&d=DwIGAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=DcQR-qLpQg5lIreuM6-NYECRIAFXt268PRNS5WO043M&m=l5WYmtfYD1Tb_7cXi0GX89wP9K_C9XB1LiM6k92RDG_fYP1YaSJohYn-oPp54iU2&s=zh6FSrd5K8nhPzPymnmzg76NsDr1hFTi2J1bSM_iuQ4&e= Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org Archives at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.freelists.org_archive_ibis-2Dinterconn_&d=DwIGAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=DcQR-qLpQg5lIreuM6-NYECRIAFXt268PRNS5WO043M&m=l5WYmtfYD1Tb_7cXi0GX89wP9K_C9XB1LiM6k92RDG_fYP1YaSJohYn-oPp54iU2&s=YJ4umTiDFadFejkktr2y9NkAKaLE6-C5386kqZVtbKo&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from June 1, 2022 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak Michael Brownell Keysight Technologies Ming Yan Marvell Steve Parker MathWorks Walter Katz Micron Technology Justin Butterfield* Randy Wolff* Siemens EDA Arpad Muranyi* ST Microelectronics Aurora Sanna Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* University of Illinois Jose Schutt-Aine Zuken USA Lance Wang* Randy Wolff convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Randy called for review of the minutes from the May 25, 2022 meeting. Randy displayed the minutes. Lance Wang motioned to approve the minutes. Arpad Muranyi seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Arpad to give an example of the physical connectivity needed for EMD automation [AR]. - Arpad noted he started to work on it, but he is not finished. Randy suggested to keep it open. Opens: - None. Discussion: PLS in Touchstone TSIRD Draft: Arpad has cleaned up the draft of the PLS document based on comments from the European IBIS Summit meeting. He did not make any changes to the beginning, as we need to make decisions about the option line. The H and G parameters were added back into the document. Arpad has changed Number_of_Poles to Number_of_Data_Lines with a brief description. Randy asked if we need to list the number of data lines. Arpad replied it is not absolutely required, and we could remove it if we want. Lance suggested we would want to add rules for Number_of_Data_Lines if there is a mismatch between the stated number and the actual number. Arpad stated a related question is if we allow comment lines and how to account for that. Randy asked how many data entries in each line. Arpad replied we must have 2 or 4 columns. Bob Ross noted there would need to be rules, such as if there is an odd number of poles, at least one of them must real. Bob asked if we would use radians or hertz for the units of the poles. Arpad asked if radians applied in this discussion. Bob replied we are supporting real and imaginary poles based on the units of the data. Arpad thought that, since we have the option line, the data is specified there, but we would need to decide how to handle this. Randy noted there is a comment from Vladimir that there is no need for units, where pole frequencies would be in hertz and residues in natural units such as Y in Siemens, Z in Ohms, and S is dimensionless. Bob had sent an email with questions. The Touchstone specification supports Version 1.1 and Version 2.0 currently. We do support all 5 matrix formats of S/Y/Z/G/H-parameters. One of the issues is that we have Version 1.1 and Version 2.0 in one document. Randy suggested we could break them up into separate sections. Bob noted we could put the port naming and PLS in separate chapters. Bob stated that there is no technical reason why we cannot use matrix format versions 1.1 and 2.0 files. Randy suggested there is nothing you can add to Touchstone 1. Bob stated, currently, the Touchstone specification contains Version 1.1 and Version 2.0, and we don't want to deprecate these formats. Arpad suggested we could have separate blocks of syntax, where the formats could be mixed. Bob agreed this would be a good idea, where we could have keywords specific to each blocks of syntax. Arpad suggested this could make splitting the blocks into different files easier. Randy suggested that if you add new features to a file it is a Touchstone 3 file. Bob commented the syntax could be in blocks. Randy stated only the Touchstone 3 parser would support the file. Arpad noted as soon as you put in a new feature that file becomes a Touchstone 3. Randy asked if it is useful to have a Touchstone 3 file that you can have a block of Touchstone 1 syntax. Arpad stated it is possible to upgrade the Touchstone 1 file to a Touchstone 3 file, and it is very easy to do this with the parser. Bob commented the idea of blocks is designed to handle this issue. One advantage is that we can keep the same rules. Bob asked if it is worth not doing it. Randy noted that we do not have separate versions for the sections of IBIS. Bob stated this would mean deprecating Version 1.1, which he is against. He asked if Touchstone 3 will be useful if it deprecates the Version 1.1 format. Arpad suggested a compromise solution would be to enclose only Version 1.1 data in a keyword. Randy suggested this could be done for Touchstone 2 as well. Arpad suggested to encapsulate the Version 1.1 data in keywords, then the other Touchstone 3 formats could be in separate blocks. Bob asked if the common header information can be listed at the top without repeating it and including it for each block. Arpad asked how we are going to make all these decisions. We have listed many questions and options. Arpad motioned to adjourn. Lance seconded. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be June 8. ================================================================================ Bin List: 1. Touchstone 3 2. Pole-residue support for Touchstone 3. Port naming