====================================================================== 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 October 5 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Cisco David Siadat Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki, Ming Yan Mentor Graphics Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff* SAE ITC Maureen Lemankiewicz, Logen Johnson Signal Integrity Software Walter Katz*, Mike LaBonte* Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* University of Aveiro in Portugal Wael Dghais Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Review of Minutes: Michael suggested to review the minutes from the September 28 meeting next week to give people time to review them. No one objected. Review of ARs: - Michael to look into changing to the phrase, "Interconnect Modeling keywords", throughout the document. - In progress. - The phrase is only used twice in draft 41. Michael proposed to not change anything currently. Opens: - None Interconnect BIRD draft 41 Review: Michael showed the latest draft 41. He started on page 9 with the Interconnect Modeling introduction. He noted that he did make some changes off-line. Mike asked about the capitalization of "Interconnect Modeling". Michael thought that it is okay, and he noted that concepts with keywords of the same name are generally capitalized. Michael took an AR to scrub the document looking for capitalized words and phrases to check for consistency. Michael commented that he made changes to the [Manufacturer] and [Description] sections to define the keywords and remove the subparameters from other locations in the document. Randy suggested to remove "Texas Instruments" as an example [Manufacturer]. Michael agreed that we should remove specific names. Bob noted that this exists in other sections of the IBIS specification. Michael mentioned that we end the list of tokens with Number_of_terminals, then we get to "Terminal lines" which do not have a specific token or reserved word to identify them. He referred to the comment asking whether these should have Assignment_type" and "Assignment_name". He suggested to delete this comment, since it is clearly defined as is. Bob suggested that we need better definitions for Terminal_type and Terminal_type_qualifer. Michael added a note that better definitions should be added. Michael noted that for Terminal lines each identifier should be separated by white space. Walter suggested to add a space between each of the identifiers in the document text. Michael asked about the comment regarding Terminal_number and Touchstone port numbers. Bob said that we only require the Nth entry. Walter suggested to add a sentence saying that the Terminal section tells the EDA tool how to connect the terminals of the subcircuit. There may not be information on terminals that are not connected. Walter took an AR to draft some text to add to the Terminal line section to explain this. He commented that we should not confuse the ports of an S-parameters with terminals. Randy commented that the second sentence in the Terminal_number section does not make sense, and this is not the correct place to define this rule. He suggested to revise this text. Michael agreed. Michael asked about the comments related to "Aggressor". He asked if there is a logical problem with the way "Aggressor" is defined. Bob commented that the circuitry is hidden and you can have a coupled model, but it might not have the Aggressor field. Also you can have "Aggressor" for an uncoupled model. Walter gave an example of a 3-line model, where only the middle signal has accurate coupling. In this case, the outer signals should not be considered as victims and should be designated with the Aggressor field, as they have incomplete coupling. Michael asked if we should add some description and additional clarification to this section to explain the concept. Walter took an AR to write some text to better explain the concept of the Aggressor field. Walter commented that if a Terminal line has the "Aggressor" label on it, then it does not have all the coupling on it. And, the terminal should be not be used as a victim. But, what is in the model in terms of whether it has coupling or not is up to the model makers. Mike suggested to add text describing what the presence of the "Aggressor" label means and what it designates for the simulation. Arpad also suggested to add some text about how the model makers should select suitable victim nets. Michael stated that he will post draft 41 of the Interconnect BIRD. Mike moved to adjourn. Randy seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection.