================================================================================ 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=X0LnbhCrXXQ8-GL_-t7mHUOZ05u2f9gVuQHV0Z-fGWvzNhz9DJPbyTmOp3UwYfBy&s=k6jVJbCwWQ9JldX8PW2Jln91VhbJ6EQJ-HvvNQnEuz8&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=X0LnbhCrXXQ8-GL_-t7mHUOZ05u2f9gVuQHV0Z-fGWvzNhz9DJPbyTmOp3UwYfBy&s=QxoooTo8verZasUMfIcE0voQXmbwzc1oWlY6bcJnQLs&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from June 8, 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 June 1, 2022 meeting. Randy displayed the minutes. Arpad Muranyi motioned to approve the minutes. Bob Ross 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 suggested to keep this AR open. Opens: - None. Discussion: PLS in Touchstone TSIRD Draft: Arpad stated he thought it might be best to start writing a draft Touchstone 3 specification. The document Walter Katz sent a few weeks ago was a good start. Randy stated we could issue a TSIRD that covers the entire spec. Arpad stated the risk is that, if we change direction, then we would have to rework the draft. Arpad suggested the best approach he could think of is to encapsulate the Touchstone 1 data in keywords. Randy agreed that this seems like a good compromise. Bob suggested to encapsulate Touchstone 2 as well. Arpad said Touchstone 2 is well defined, and we could add the new features around it. Randy asked if Bob supports the keyword wrapper. Bob replied we should keep the Touchstone 2 format as well. Bob commented that we do not want to rewrite any Touchstone 2 or Touchstone 1 specification. Arpad noted Touchstone 2 is keyword based, and we should keep it forward looking with the ability to add new features. Arpad suggested to separate the Touchstone 2 specification into the keyword based section and the non-keyword based section into separate sections. Randy agreed this would not be too difficult. Arpad intends to not make technical changes but only editorial changes to the existing specification. Bob thought this might be more work, but he was okay with it. Randy suggested to make the changes in TSIRD4, which has editorial fixes. Arpad asked if TSIRD4 is the only TSIRD to consider. Randy reviewed TSIRD3 which looks more like a clarification. While, TSIRD2 is for binary format support, and TSIRD1 is for sparse matrix mapping support. Arpad said we could add TSIRD1 and TSIRD2 whenever we wanted. Bob noted he had worked on the sparse matrix format and had given a presentation on it in the past. But, there could be technical issues if you remove data, as this may cause causality issues. Arpad noted Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov suggested sparse matrix could be done for PLS, but he did not see the value, since the file size is already much smaller for PLS. Bob was okay to postpone TSIRD1 and TSIRD2. Arpad asked if he should include both TSIRD3 and TSIRD4. Randy suggested to review TSIRD3 in more detail. Bob suggested to use TSIRD3 and TSIRD4. Arpad planned to start with Touchstone 2 and make the TSIRD3 and TSIRD4 changes. We can keep this document as a baseline. Arpad stated he could add the current PLS draft document as a place holder in the document. Bob suggested we should also separate the Touchstone 1 and Touchstone 2 sections. Arpad agreed this could be a good intermediate step. Bob presented his pseudo code document. He documented the file format combinations. He noted we can pull together the common header information, and keywords can be repeated if needed. But, we should avoid conflicts, such as Upper and Lower and mixing S and Z-parameters. Bob noted he sent out two versions of pseudo code, one version has the repeated keywords and the other does not. Randy suggested we may add Touchstone 1 Format keywords. Arpad asked if the name should be "Touchstone 1.0" or "Touchstone 1.1". Bob thought our official format would be "Touchstone 1.1". Arpad commented that we would need to decide on this. Randy asked, between the two formats from Bob, which one is preferred. Arpad asked what is the difference to Walter's PoleResidue Boilerplate. Randy suggested to review Walter's PoleResidue Boilerplate again. Bob commented that a fundamental difference is the Two-Port Data Order between Touchstone 1 and Touchstone 2. Bob noted we need to be careful with the rules and differences when splitting Touchstone 1 and Touchstone 2 into different sections. The examples can be split easily. Arpad will add the TSIRD3 and TSIRD4 changes to the Touchstone specification as a baseline document [AR]. Arpad will separate the Touchstone 1 and Touchstone 2 sections [AR]. Arpad will add a section for PLS [AR]. Arpad asked if we should use the IBIS specification keyword definition format of Usage Rules, Description, etc. sections for the keywords. The disadvantage with doing it now is that it makes the document harder to compare. Randy stated that we could consider it later. Bob agreed. Arpad motioned to adjourn. Bob seconded. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be TBD. ================================================================================ Bin List: 1. Touchstone 3 2. Pole-residue support for Touchstone 3. Port naming