================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org ================================================================================ Attendees from June 7, 2023 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 Siemens EDA Arpad Muranyi*, Randy Wolff* ST Microelectronics Aurora Sanna Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* University of Illinois Jose Schutt-Aine Zuken USA Lance Wang Michael Mirmak called the meeting to order and took minutes. No patents were declared. The team reviewed the minutes for the May 24th meeting. No changes were requested. Arpad Muranyi moved to approve the minutes. Randy Wolff seconded the motion. Without objection, the minutes were approved. The team reviewed the mintues for the May 31st meeting. Arpad requested a phrase be added to the minutes text at the end of the sentence containing "Version 2.1 as an argument to the [Version]...": ", but Arpad noted that introducing 2.1 as the argument for [Version] was not needed to achieve the goals of this TSIRD." Bob Ross noted that he had a counterargument and would review the details later in the meeting. Arpad moved to approve the minutes with the noted change. Bob seconded the motion. Without objection, the minutes were approved. During review of the ARs, Michael summarized his conversations with Ted Mido, noting that Touchstone Version 2.0 and the Synopsys implementation, including normalization, appear to be consistent. Bob added that Touchstone 2.0 is also compliant with the original EESoF implementation, so no changes should be required in the documentation. The TSCHK2 parser performs conversions correctly. The AR was closed. Per Arpad's AR, he noted that he would be willing to add a truth table to his TSIRD draft. Michael suggested this could be an editorial clarification later, to help causal readers. Arpad has included some comments in his TSIRD draft to address this. Bob raised and summarized the version issue, noting that the team had not yet come to an agreement on how to handle it. Arpad summarized a potential strategy, noting that Bob's draft of TSIRD 6 had four divisions: - Version 1.0 - Version 1.1 - Version 2.0 - Version 2.1 Arpad removed version 2.1 in his draft, as no rules are changing in version 2.1. If 2.1 is permitted, he would have to put back Bob's text covering this section. Bob replied that the changes define a Version 2.1 *document*. Arpad agreed. In addition, the team is agreed to remove the extended option line for Version 2.x. If you need per-port impedance, you should use [Reference]. Arpad also agreed. THe initial proposal was to remove 2.1 as a version; this is not consistent with IBIS practice. Arpad asked when IBIS released a version with *only* editorial changes. Bob showed a tree in response, specifically calling out .ebd, .pkg in contrast to .ibs. Michael mentioned reissues of 3.x series for international standardization. Bob's counterproposal is to allow the Version keyword to accept 2.1 as an argument, to be consistent with IBIS and to be documented as such. He can add a statement, in bold, saying that 2.1 and 2.0 are syntactically identical. He also advocates removing "and above" language; Arpad agrees. Arpad agrees with version 2.1 for *document*, and that parser will need updating as well. However, from the perspective of a model-maker, there is no difference between 2.1 vs. 2.0. Michael showed the currently-approved TSIRDs and advocated inclusion of TSIRD 1.1 in a Version 2.1 to dodge the question and ensure that 2.1 included a syntax change. Bob noted that Version and specification edition must be in sync, for consistency with IBIS .pkg, .ebd formats (as opposed to .ibs). Randy agreed with Bob on allowing 2.1, as this is consistent with IBIS practice. Bob added that a parser flag would need to be added to down-convert 2.1 (though there are already many flags in the parser). Randy commented that upconversion could also be supported. Arpad noted that every EDA tool that can work with 2.0 files will have to update their tools with 2.1 support as a single line. Michael repeated his suggestion regarding adding TSIRD 1.1 support. Arpad replied thata was statement made earlier that 2.1 would be "released quickly"; technical alterations would slow this down, and 2.1 was implied to be focused only on the multiple reference issue. Randy agreed that changes would imply "a lot more work." He also agreed with Arpad about tool inconvenience, but few people make 2.0 files today. Arpad asked Michael's opinion; Michael replied that the whole issue is a distraction from the file size reduction features needed by industry in Touchstone 3.0. A straw poll of those in attendance suggested 3-to-1 in favor of 2.1 containing no syntax changes. Bob will therefore update his draft for next time, including the removal of "and above" statements. Arpad moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be June 7, 2023 unless cancelled. ================================================================================ Bin List: 1. Draft Touchstone document separating version 1.0 and 2.0 2. Encapsulating Touchstone 1.0 data 3. Touchstone 2.0 draft with TSIRD3 and TSIRD4 4. Pole-residue format 5. Port naming 6. Alternatives to the Touchstone 1.0 option line 7. Enable Cascading of S-parameters Through W-element 8. Touchstone 3.0 draft outline (dependent on several items above) Tabled ARs: - Arpad to give an example of the physical connectivity needed for EMD automation.