================================================================================ 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=28cSRhLdZNnypdbYFVk2wMtiI8t7eYjx5sO2gyh5Kxw&s=YfMj6072Rf9lcsNNhYKB_lmsVMgfEbMgj139539SwrE&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=28cSRhLdZNnypdbYFVk2wMtiI8t7eYjx5sO2gyh5Kxw&s=4HFswpC8teGEbkHY-odpeIRdiQyL73n4__5SlS3s9rE&e= ================================================================================ Attendees from June 24, 2020 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Ifiok Umoh Eric Edwards 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* Zuken USA Lance Wang Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Michael called for review of the minutes from the June 10, 2020 meeting. Randy moved to approve the minutes. Arpad seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Michael will send out EMD draft14. - Michael reported this is done. - Randy will review the rule sections marked for deletion on pages 37, 38, and 39 to identify text to be retained and moved to the introduction. - Randy reported these 3 sections have been reviewed and the document has been sent out. Opens: - None. EMD Draft Review: Randy reviewed the first section of the text marked for deletion. He added color coding to help the discussion. He highlighted the sections in green which are safe to delete. Yellow sections will need more discussion. And, red sections are information not found in other places. Bob suggested we can skim over the green sections. Randy noted the first red text is a rule missing from the Designator Pin List section. Bob stated the EMD Model can have the Designator with the Designator pin_names. Randy noted it is missing the rest of the statement about the pin_name preceded by the period, which is inserted between the reference designator and the pin_name. He suggested to add this rule to the Designator Pin List section. Arpad agreed. Randy commented the next red section, regarding any IO Terminal_type without the Aggressor_Only may be considered a victim, is not expressed anywhere else. The Aggressor_Only field is not well defined in this BIRD. Bob commented the Aggressor_Only rule could be ambiguous. If there is an Aggressor_Only tag at any of the interfaces, it is all an Aggressor_Only for the whole path. We do not define the term "victim". Randy suggested to add the rule statement to the Aggessor_only section, which will need more attention. He suggested to add the Aggressor_Only section rewrite to the bin list. Arpad suggested to copy this sentence to the Aggressor_only section as an item to be reviewed. Randy moved the text and deleted the original text. Arpad suggested to delete the green text as well. Randy noted the next comment is related to the rails and signals not being introduced in the EMD section. Bob commented, in the pin lists, we introduce the distinction between the two but not explicit definitions. Randy noted the first mention of rail pin is in the EMD Pin List, and this is covered in this section with a parenthetical. Bob noted we have similar text in the Designator Pin List section. Randy noted EMD terminal and Designator terminal are only mentioned on page 21, but not defined anywhere. Arpad asked what EMD terminal rail is. Michael asked if we need to fix these and search for other instances. Randy replied this is the only place these are used. He suggested to clean up the list on page 21 and to delete some of these terms. Arpad agreed this list can be confusing. Randy moved the comment to page 21. Michael asked if this is older syntax. Bob replied this is probably copied from the Interconnect Model section. Randy suggested to say rail terminals at the EMD Pin List interface only. He suggested similar text for the Designator Pin List. Bob noted all the items relate to terminals. Randy suggested to change the start of the list to say "EMD model may contain terminals in the following combinations" and change the list accordingly. Bob suggested to add at one or more interfaces. Randy stated this is assumed. Randy noted the next comment relates to the Aggressor_Only. Bob noted this is stated in the rules above, as it is optional. Randy agreed, if we fix the Aggressor_Only section, this is covered. Randy noted there are descriptions of EMD Model uses that don't exist and asked if they are need. Bob commented there are two uses for PDN models, which are for the power delivery and as references. It is assumed the definition of a rail is known. Arpad suggested to look at the red text sections first. Randy noted the next red comment is related to the two or more interfaces for the signal_names. Bob noted this is no longer a valid case. Randy suggested to delete this. Randy noted the next comment is for the EMD Model being able support terminals from one or more interfaces. Bob commented we have already covered this. Randy agreed we do not need to cover this is in two places in different ways. Michael asked where we want to start next time. Arpad suggested to start with the IO Pin rules. Randy will send out draft15 [AR]. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be July 1. Randy moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. ================================================================================ Bin List: EMD Comments to be Resolved: (See BIRD202.1 tracking spreadsheet) IBIS-ISS Parser: - IBIS-ISS parser scope document