Re: True or False?

Arpad,

I wonder if this is what it feels like to be an attourney?...

> In my opinion then, it would be perfectly legal (even if it makes no sense)
> to have two pins in the pin list defined as "NC" while defining them as
> differential pairs in the [Diff Pin] section.

"EVEN IT MAKES NO SENSE" -- Abusing the spec in a insensible manner
promotes confusion and indicates that the spec should be revised to
either:

      A) eliminate the insensible use

          - don't use [Diff Pin] to assign a vdiff to a pair
            of "non-sensing" (excuse the pun) terminators.

      B) make the use sensible
      
          - Allow [Series Mapping] to be applied to a receiver
            as well as a terminator.

I don't think you should release a model that makes no sense even if
it's debatably "legal."

Chris

Muranyi, Arpad wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I reread the section you pointed out to me
> (several more times) and I believe I am starting to understand the problem.
>
> It seems to me that the problem is not that I am using the series model
> together
> with a terminator model, but that these were "coupled" as a differential
> pair.
>
> You made a statement that "the Diff Pins had to be NON-terminators" (I guess
>
> Input, I/O, etc...). Looking at the [Diff Pin] section of the spec,
> however, I
> could not find anything that suggests that differential pins had to be a
> certain
> type of a model. Also, I don't see anything in the [Diff Pin] section that
> calls a [Model](s) for the pins it defines as differential. The [Model]
> keywords are still referenced only by the pin list section (some times
> through
> the [Model Selector] keyword) even if we have a [Diff Pin] definition for
> them.
> In my opinion then, it would be perfectly legal (even if it makes no sense)
> to
> have two pins in the pin list defined as "NC" while defining them as
> differential pairs in the [Diff Pin] section. If this is legal then calling
>
> Terminator type models in the pin list and defining them as differential
> pairs
> should also be legal.
>
> Using this argument I would summarize that the model we made is NOT
> violating
> the spec. because
>
> 1) The pin list calls a model that is type Terminator
> 2) Terminator model types are legal with Series models
> 3) Applying the [Diff Pin] keyword does not change the model type
> already defined on the pin list to anything else
> 3) Applying the [Diff Pin] keyword does not add models of any type
> to the models already defined on the pin list
> 4) There are no restrictions for what model types can be associated
> as differential pair in the [Diff Pin] section
>
> Please let me know whether this argument is acceptable or not.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Arpad
>
Received on Fri Oct 9 10:46:03 1998