Re[2]: New package model proposal by Steven Peters

Hello Chris, Kumar, Kellee and others:

  On 5/9 Chris Reed wrote:

>The problem as I see it is that the Egg proposes one way to model
>an MCM which may do for some particular part, but may be inadequate for
>some other part. We do not want to add to Ibis a plethora of syntaxes
>to support many different package model options.

     My proposal was never intended to model MCMs, SIMs, etc. and I belive
we should take a long, hard look before we start trying to describe
what amounts to complex circuit boards. IBIS is a standard describing
*I/O buffers*; we are concerned about the packaging only is as much as
its effects are inseperable from the actual silicon characteristics.
Also, this proposal is an attempt to refine what has already been defined,
not come up with a whole new scheme. It does cover existing DIP/SOIC/
PQFP/BGA/PGA/TAB packages -- basicly any package where the leadframe
can be represented as multipule elements in series, with coupling between
any set of arbitary elements.
    This may be a bit of a philosophical discussion, but consider this:
users, given half a chance, would take a '.pkg' file that allows general
descriptions and use it to describe an entire motherboards net topology.
This may be a 'great and wonderful' thing, but is that the intent of IBIS?

         Regards,
         Stephen Peters
Received on Wed May 10 09:32:06 1995