Minutes, IBIS Quality Committee

25 Nov 2008

11-12 AM EST (8-9 AM PST)

ROLL CALL
  Adam Tambone
* Anders Ekholm, Ericsson
  Barry Katz, SiSoft
  Benny Lazer
  Benjamin P Silva
  Bob Cox, Micron
* Bob Ross, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Brian Arsenault
* David Banas, Xilinx
* Eckhard Lenski, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Eric Brock
* Guan Tao, Huawei Technologies
  Gregory R Edlund
  Hazem Hegazy
  Huang Chunxing, Huawei Technologies
  John Figueroa
  John Angulo, Mentor Graphics
  Katja Koller, Nokia Siemens Networks
  Kevin Fisher
  Kim Helliwell, LSI Logic
  Lance Wang, IOMethodology
  Lynne Green
* Mike LaBonte, Cisco Systems
  Mike Mayer, SiSoft
* Moshiul Haque, Micron Technology
* Pavani Jella, TI
  Peter LaFlamme
  Randy Wolff, Micron Technology
  Radovan Vuletic, Qimonda
  Robert Haller, Enterasys
  Roy Leventhal, Leventhal Design & Communications
  Sherif Hammad, Mentor Graphics
  Todd Westerhoff, SiSoft
  Tom Dagostino, Teraspeed Consulting Group
  Kazuyoshi Shoji, Hitachi
  Sadahiro Nonoyama

Everyone in attendance marked by *

NOTE: "AR" = Action Required.

-----------------------MINUTES ---------------------------
Mike LaBonte conducted the meeting.

Call for patent disclosure:

- No one declared a patent.

AR Review:

- Mike propose IBISCHK bug for 5.5.6
  - TBD

New items:

- Mike out 2 Dec.

Continued review of the IBIS Quality Specification:

5.5.8.	{LEVEL 2}  [Ramp] dt is consistent with 20%-80% crossing time
- Is this level 2?
  - Yes.
  - Level 3 checks tend to be measurement for test load parameters.
- We added ", if matching V-T tables are present. The voltage thresholds used are the same as determined for check 5.5.7. "
- Is factor of 2 OK?
  - Anders: It would be suspicious if Ramp were faster.
  - Bob: This is to catch units problems like seconds instead of ns
  - Bob: [Ramp] may be meaningless for buffers designed to be terminated
    - The Ramp numbers may be odd due to saturation
    - Mike: Those buffers will not have matching waveforms
  - Mike: There should be almost no error at all
  - Bob: We could use a 10% tolerance
- Ramp is used by tools to estimate crosstalk coupling and simulation duration
- We changed 5.5.7 and 5.5.8 to call for 10% instead of factor of two.
- Bob: We might have a threshold for non-matching waveforms
  - This could be just a suggestion
  - Mike: We have been avoiding suggestions in the checks so far
- Mike: Should the 20/80 dt for all waveforms cover less than a 10:1 range?
  - Bob: No, they can vary more than that
- Bob: We could take the slowest waveform dt and compare to Ramp dt
  - Should match within 100%
  - Would catch waveforms with wrong units
    - David: This kind of check is good
- Mike: Does this belong in section 5.4 for waveforms?
  - Either Ramp or waveform could be wrong, so the Ramp section is fine
- Mike: We could require checking Ramp against each waveform
  - The tolerance would depend on whether the fixture matches
  - Anders: This seems reasonable
  - Bob: We would to have a free tool to do this.
    - IBISCHK should produce waveform metrics anyway

Anders: The first 2 sentences of 5.5.7 are redundant
- We fixed the first sentence to not specify a threshold.

5.5.9.	{LEVEL 2}  [Ramp] dt is consistent with data sheet
- Bob: THis is too self evident, should be deleted
- We decided to delete this.

AR: Mike post IQ 1.1aj document

Next meeting:

09 Dec 2008 11-12 AM EST (8-9 AM PST)

Meeting ended at 12:15 PM Eastern Time.