DATE: 7/27/99
SUBJECT: 7/23/99 EIA IBIS Open Forum Meeting Minutes
VOTING MEMBERS AND 1999 PARTICIPANTS LIST:
AMP (Martin Freedman)
Applied Simulation Technology Raj Raghuram, Norio Matsui, Neven Orhanovic,
Fred Ballesteri*
Avanti Nikolai Bannov
Cadence Design Mike LaBonte*
Cisco Systems Syed Huq*
Compaq Bob Haller*, Steve Coe, Shafir Rahman,
Maher Elasad
Cypress (Rajesh Manapat)
EMC Corporation Fabrizio Zanella*
Fairchild Semiconductor [Peter LaFlamme], Craig Klem
H.A.S. Electronics (Haruny Said)
Hewlett Packard (EEsof, etc.) Paul Gregory, Henry Wu
High Design Technology Razvan Ene
HyperLynx (& Pads Software) Matthew Flora*, Kellee Crisafulli, Lynne Green
IBM Greg Edlund*, Michael Cohen*, Praven Patel
Incases Olaf Rethmeier, Werner Rissiek, David Eagles,
Wilhelm Arnoldi, Ulrich Losch
Intel Corporation Stephen Peters*, Arpad Muranyi*, Frank Kern,
Martin Chang, Dave Moxley, Kerry Nelson,
Jeff Day, Richard Mellitz, Peter Liou,
Will Hobbs, Henri Maramis
LSI Logic (Symbios Logic) Scott King
Mentor Graphics Bob Ross*, Mohamed Mahmoud, Sherif Hammad,
Jean Oudinot, Markku Kukkanen, Martin Groeber,
Karine Loudet, Hisham Gamal, Evgeny Wasserman
Mitsubishi (Tam Cao)
Motorola (Ron Werner)
National Semiconductor Milt Schwartz
North East Systems Associates Edward Sayre, Michael Baxter, Kathy Breda
NEC (Hiroshi Matsumoto)
Philips Semiconductor Todd Andersen, Peter Christiaans
Quantic EMC (Mike Ventham)
Siemens Bernhard Unger, Christian Mitschke,
Manfred Maurer, Peter Kaiser, Wolfram Meyer,
Gerald Bannert, Harmut Ibowski, Katja Zuleeg,
Hans Pichlmaier, Eckhard Lenski, Kortheuer Udo,
Christian Sporrer
SiQual Scott McMorrow
Texas Instruments Jean-Claude Perrin, Shankar Balasubramaniah,
Ramzi Ammar, Thomas Fisher
Thomson-CSF (Jean Lebrun)
Time Domain Analysis Systems Dima Smolyansky
Viewlogic Systems Chris Rokusek*, Guy de Burgh*, Cary Mandel,
(Jon Powell)
VeriBest Ian Dodd*
VLSI Technology D.C. Sessions
Zuken-Redac (John Berrie)
OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN 1999:
3Dfx Interactive Ken Wu
Actel Corporation Silvia Montoya
Alcatel Steven Criel
Analytical Edge Robert Easson
Applied Microelectronics Brian Sanderson
BMW Friedrich Haslinger
Bogatin Enterprise Eric Bogatin
Bosch Telecom Detlef Wolf
Celestica Danny Da Silva*
ECI Telecom Daniel Adar
EIA [Patti Rusher], Cecilia Fleming,
Dan Heinemeier
Electronique Catherine Gross
EFM Consulting Ekkehard Miersch
FCI John Ellis
Hitachi ULSI Hideki Fukuda
Infineon Thomas Latzel
Intracon Design Mike Osmond
Litton Systems Robert Bremer
Matsushita Atsuji Itoh
Molex Incorporated Gus Panella
Nortel Networks Martin Hall (& at Viewlogic), Calvin Trowell
Oce Printing Systems Ernst Deiringer
Praegitzer Design Rick Newell
Rockwell Collins Susan Tweeton, Ron Hau
Samsung Jung-Gun Byun, Cheol-Seung Choi
Shindengen Tsuyoshi Horigome
Signals & Systems Engineering Tom Hawkins
STMicroelectronics Fabrice Boissieres, Philippe LeFevre
StorageTek Nick Krull
Sun Microsystems Victor Chang, Kevin Ko
Tektronix Tom Brinkoetter
Teradyne Mikhail Khusid
VDOL Robert Novosel
Xilinx Susan Wu
(Unaffiliated, Retired) Bruce Wenniger
In the list above, attendees at the meeting are indicated by *. Principal
members or other active members who have not attended are in parentheses.
Participants who no longer are in the organization are in square brackets.
Upcoming Meetings: The bridge numbers for future IBIS teleconferences are as
follows:
Date Bridge Number Reservation # Passcode
August 6, 1999 (916) 356-9200 8-34299 4495256
August 20, 1999 (916) 356-9200 8-34300 1159828
All meetings are 8:00 AM to 9:55 AM Pacific Time. We try to have agendas out
7 days before each Open Forum and meeting minutes out within 7 days after.
When you call into the meeting, ask for the IBIS Open Forum hosted by Will
Hobbs and give the reservation number and passcode.
NOTE: "AR" = Action Required.
-------------------------------- MINUTES -------------------------------------
INTRODUCTIONS AND MEETING QUORUM
Danny Da Silva joined from Celestica. He is interested in the Dual Data Rate
SDRAM discussions with IBIS (and JEDEC JC-42.3).
Fred Ballesteri called in from Applied Simulation Technology since Raj
Raghuram was out.
MEMBERSHIP UPDATE AND TREASURER'S REPORT
Bob noted that he is still working with Cecilia Fleming on 1999 IBIS
membership payments. EIA will be following up in on some unpaid invoices.
Bob currently estimates 28 or 29 paid members and expects a few more.
REVIEW OF MINUTES AND AR'S
The June 21, 1999 IBIS Minutes were approved.
Bob Ross asked Michael Cohen whether he needed the clarification about
"whamming" related to the s2ibis2/3 discussion in the May 28, 1999 IBIS
Minutes. Michael stated that he did not think this was necessary since he
had already sent a clarification statement to the IBIS reflector. The IBIS
Minutes of May 28, 1999 were approved without modification.
Bob noted that the June 21, 1999 Meeting Minutes contained AR's for Bob Ross
and Cecilia Fleming that still are open:
AR - Bob Ross and Cecilia Fleming research what is needed to align the IBIS
bylaws with EP-20.
AR - Bob Ross and Cecilia write position definitions for the new positions of
Webmaster and Postmaster.
Bob noted that he received the EP-20 document and also sent Cecilia the
original IBIS Charter Document. Work on these AR's may occur after the
letter ballot activity is completed.
Other AR's will be discussed during the meeting.
MISCELLANY/ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
PRESS AND WEB PAGE UPDATES
Syed Huq reported that some EIA IBIS Web site updates are needed on the
Upcoming Events.
Bob Ross reported that Werner Rissiek sent him two articles from the May 1999
issue of the German publication Produktion von Leiterplatten Und Systemen
(Production of PCBs and Systems). One article covered the IBIS Summit
meeting held in Munich, Germany on March 9, 1999, and the other was an
interview with Werner on IBIS. The articles are "Neues zum IBIS-Standard,
IBIS Summit Meeting in Munchen" on pp. 607-609, and "Interview mit Werner
Rissiek zur IBIS-Anwendung" on pp. 609-610.
Bob also noted that the June 1999 issue of Computer Design's Electronic
Systems contains the article "IBIS vs. Spice: Has One Emerged as the Best for
Board-level Simulation?" on pp. 36-39 by Charles Small. It has comments
from several IBIS committee participants. This issue also contains the
article "Intense Competition in PCB Software Sparks new Strategies, Features"
by Charles Small on pp. 24 - 26 which briefly mentions IBIS. The link to
the first article is:
http://www.estd.com/Editorial/1999/06/0699eda.html
Bob reported that EDN moved their Signal Integrity link with IBIS content
to:
http://www.ednmag.com/ednmag/verticalmarkets/Signal.asp
Bob noted Margery Conners, Webmaster, invites relevant IBIS news such as
Accuracy Committee results, presentations, IBIS meetings, etc. to the News
column section.
Finally, Bob reported that the book Data Transmission Lines Computer Modelling
and Analysis by Kenneth Granzow, published in 1999 by the Oxford University
Press, has a brief reference to IBIS and EIA for non-linear models on
transmission lines.
NEW MODELS AVAILABLE, LIBRARY UPDATE
Bob Ross reported that Jon Powell updated the EIA IBIS Model Site. Among
the new entries is a link to the AMD K6 series:
http://www.amd.com/K6/k6docs/ibis.html
and SDRAMs from Samsung Semiconductor (URL is split into two lines to avoid
possible mailer truncation):
http://www.intl.samsungsemi.com/Products/
PageView.Asp?d_code=56&b_code=0&c_code=853
OPENS FOR NEW ISSUES
None.
INTERNATIONAL/EXTERNAL PROGRESS
- IEC 62014-1 (IBIS Version 2.1) - Bob Ross had no further report.
- pr EIAJ ED-5302 Standard for I/O Interface Model for Integrated Circuits
(IMIC) - Bob Ross had no further report. Bob did mention that this there
were presentations on this at the June 21, 1999 IBIS Summit Meeting and
afterwards, Dr. Hideki indicated that he is leaning toward a position of
two standards and linkages.
- IEC 93/67/NP IBIS and EMC Simulation - Bob Ross had no further report
- JC-16.2 Subcommittee: Modeling and Test - Bob Ross had no further report.
IBIS (EAST) USERS GROUP MEETINGS
Fabrizio Zanella reported that a small group met in June at North East Systems
Associates and discussed the Accuracy Test Board. Compaq and EMC plan to make
update the test board and apply it for some more common devices in time for
the October 14, 1999 IBIS Summit Meeting. Meeting minutes have not been
circulated.
Bob Ross noted that Kathy Breda has reserved a room at the Marlborough Holiday
Inn in Marlborough, Massachusetts for all day Thursday, October 14, 1999.
The PCB Conference East is being held nearby that week. Last year the Summit
Meeting was held at the Boxborough Holiday Inn.
IBIS SUMMIT AT DESIGN AUTOMATION CONFERENCE FEEDBACK
Bob Ross commented on the IBIS Summit Meeting held in New Orleans, Louisiana
on June 21, 1999. He felt that we hand excellent presentations, but perhaps
not enough time for open discussions.
All of the presentations are now uploaded at:
http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/summits/jun99/
IBIS DESIGNCON2000 SUMMIT AND SPONSORSHIP
Bob Ross stated that DesignCon2000 organizers offered having the IBIS Open
Forum as an Associate Sponsor, similar to last year. Among the benefits are
a meeting room and refreshments for the IBIS Summit and a booth at the show.
Matthew Flora noted that last year we agreed to DesignCon99 advertisement on
the IBIS reflectors. However none was sent. Bob stated that we would again
permit some reviewed advertisement from an authorized source (versus SPAM).
Also we currently have a link to the DesignCon2000 home page in the Upcoming
Events section as part of our agreement. The arrangements are positive for
both organizations because many IBIS participants support and participate in
the DesignCon show. Furthermore, in response to a question from Stephen
Peters, Bob noted that the benefits to the IBIS Open Forum are free.
Bob stated that he conditionally accepted the proposal. Bob called for a
vote to formally accept the offer. This was approved by a unanimous vote.
SP-4557 - IBIS VERSION 3.2 LETTER BALLOT RESULTS
Bob Ross reported that the vote on SP-4557 is currently 18 Yes and 0 No. Five
of the Yes votes contained comments. These will be addressed later in the
technical part of the meeting.
Of the 18 votes, 16 votes came from IBIS Member companies. So the vote is
in compliance with EIA rules concerning requiring a majority of official
members to vote. Even though the EIA deadline was June 23, 1999, we are
counting votes and considering comments received after the deadline.
The ANSI Vote deadline is August 3, 1999. Stephen Peters asked if the ANSI
vote goes to the IBIS Members. Bob stated that it goes to the corporate
ANSI representatives and is a vote on process versus content. Bob stated
that he has not heard of any issues or concerns in the ANSI vote. The plan
is still to formally consider all of the comments and update the IBIS
Versions 3.2 document. This is be officially ratified as EIA-656-A and
shortly thereafter as ANSI/EIA-656-A after ANSI formal acceptance.
S2IBIS3 COMMITTEE REPORT
Michael Cohen reported on the July 14, 1999 teleconference meeting. The
group agreed that the IBIS Committee is responsible for advancing s2ibis3.
The goal is to produce a requirements document and bug report list so that
bids can be obtained. Then the funding issue can be considered.
Also, Michael stated that bugs in s2ibis2 can be fixed by volunteers.
The next meeting is tentatively planned for Friday August 13, 1999. Michael
complimented Ian Dodd, who is serving as the Secretary for the group, for
producing detailed meeting minutes.
INPUT SPECIFICATION MEETING
Stephen Peters reported on productive "brainstorming" meeting held in
San Jose, California on Thursday, July 22, 1999 with Stephen, Arpad Muranyi,
Richard Mellitz and D.C. Sessions on improving the input specification for
switching thresholds. Stephen noted that topic is also of interest to JEDEC
JC-42.3 where D.C. is a member. This meeting served to reconcile several
input specification proposals and would lead to the generation of some new
BIRDs for IBIS Version 4.0.
Stephen summarized some of the discussion. Some new switching thresholds
designated Vinh-ac, Vinl-ac, Vinh-dc, and Vinl-dc that are relative to the
actual switching threshold are proposed. For example, if the actual
switching threshold is 1.5 V for a 3.3 V CMOS input, the new Vinh-ac and
Vinh-dc thresholds might be entered as 200 mV offsets. These offsets can be
used to provide a voltage which guarantee switching to the high state, and
also one that guarantees the output will remain in the high state.
Other details involve describing the threshold source (internal or external
reference as in GTL), threshold sensitivity and typ-min-max specification.
Mike LaBonte asked if the equation based methodology discussed by Arpad
Muranyi at the June 21, 1999 IBIS Summit Meeting could be used. Arpad
cautioned that the equation based approach may involve standardizing a set
of mathematical operators (integration differentiation, etc.) and might be
too complicated to try in this application.
Bob Ross noted that the proposals are evolving from earlier IBIS Summit
presentations by D.C., Stephen and Arpad. Many IBIS advances have been seeded
by IBIS Summit presentations. Also, Danny Da Silva is welcome to contact
Stephen directly to participate and contribute to this proposal.
Stephen continued with more meeting discussions. The second major topic
concerned how receiver signal characteristics such as edge rate and overdrive
affect setup and hold times and output delays. A receiver delay table with
syntax similar to the [Rising Waveform] and [Falling Waveform] tables will be
proposed to classify receiver delay adjustment values as a function of voltage
levels and slew rate. So manufacturers can enter more detailed Tco (time
from clock to output) information into the model.
Stephen also discussed putting in a golden waveform section for time versus
voltage and other characterizations. In order to test these specification
ideas, Richard and Stephen plan to develop some examples based on actual
device SPICE models of Intel devices. EDA tool vendors can see if the
information is useful and can produce the expected results.
Stephen plans to write several BIRDs on this topic that will provide the
exact details of the proposals.
COOKBOOK STATUS
Stephen Peters had no report.
IBIS MODEL REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Matthew Flora just received one new possible request for validation.
SP-4557 LETTER BALLOT COMMENTS
Bob Ross noted that comments from four companies and DRAFT responses were
sent to the reflector on Wednesday, July 21, 1999. [These are included below
in these Minutes.] The SiQual comments have just been received, but have
not yet been processed.
To complete the ratification process, we need to officially respond to each
comment. We would have had to respond (and possibly work with the comment
provider) to any comment that had been the basis for a "No" vote in a manner
that would have attempted to satisfy the concern and possibly change the
vote. We would then have needed to wait for the comment provider's reply.
Since all of the comments were associated with "Yes" votes, our only
obligation is to provide a considered response with which the comment
provider may or may not agree.
However, in nearly all cases we agree with the comment and proposed solution
or else are proposing an alternative solution that would also satisfactorily
deal with the problem. [We thank the comment providers for taking the time
to review the document and for helping to contribute to a better document.]
Most of the obvious editorial comments can be resolved quickly. However, a
few proposed responses need further discussion.
Bob Ross introduced the Letter Ballot Comments for discussion and
confirmation:
(1) Mentor Graphics Comments and Draft Responses:
-----
Mentor Graphics: 1
Editorial
Suggested Change: We support the approved BIRD58.3 editorial changes to be
implemented in the document.
Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. The approved version of
EIA-656-A will contain the BIRD58.3 changes.
Mentor Graphics: 2
Editorial
Suggested Change: We support correcting minor grammatical and consistency
mistakes that may be encountered as part of the final document preparation
process.
Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. The approved version of
EIA-656-A will correct obvious grammatical and consistency errors discovered
by the document preparation team.
-----
After briefly introducing the comments and responses, Bob called for a vote
on the draft responses to Mentor Graphics. The responses to Mentor Graphics
were approved by unanimous vote.
(2) Anigma, Inc. Comments and Draft Responses:
-----
Anigma, Inc.: 1
Technical
Reference: Page 22
Keyword: [Model Spec]
Required: No
Suggested Change: Change from Required: No to Required: Yes
Rationale: Test load parameters Vmeas, Vref, Cref and Rref are critical
to the timing analysis part of SI simulation.
Therefore the parameters Vmeas, Vref, Cref and Rref should be accurately
preset in every "driver" model.
Response: No Change will be made.
Reason: The suggested change also relates to the [Model] keyword and
the subparameters Vmeas, Vref, Cref and Rref described on pages 20-22.
While many members of the committee will support your position in practice,
we are rejecting this suggested change for the following reasons:
Commitment to Backward Compatibility. We making Vmeas and other
subparameters required would conflict with one item in our Statement of
Intent on Page 5. Valid Version 2.1 IBIS models that do not have the
optional Vmeas and other subparameters would no longer be valid. In other
words, some IBIS models that are valid according to ANSI/EIA-656 would
be invalid according to EIA-656-A.
Furthermore, the test load parameters are only useful for delay measurement,
which either may not be needed or generated in some simulators.
However, in the related Cookbook document we strongly support the practice
of adding the appropriate optional subparameters to models so that they
contain all of the information needed for all simulators.
-----
Bob noted that Guy de Burgh contributed the reason concerning delay
measurement.
The proposed response triggered a discussion. Bob Haller, Syed Huq, Michael
Cohen and Fred Ballesteri stated that they agreed with the comment provider's
intent to require the timings subparameters. Syed added that this would
promote good modeling practice. Bob Ross, Stephen Peters and others responded
that while they supported requiring the timing subparameters in practice, they
should not be required in IBIS Version 3.2 for the given reasons.
Michael noted that "Backward Compatibility" is still preserved since the
requirement would only apply to Version 3.X designated IBIS models.
Bob Ross was concerned that this was a "technical" change which could
theoretically trigger a new letter ballot and a parser change. Furthermore,
some details would need to be clarified. For example, only Vmeas should be
required, not all subparameters as stated. The total impact would be further
delay in the formal standardization of all of the IBIS Version 3.2 advances.
Bob Haller suggested that we could consider the issue of making Vmeas
required in Version 4.X. Bob Ross added that this statement could be added
to the set of reasons for not accepting the Suggested Changes. The group
felt this was a good compromise. Bob Ross called for a vote on the draft
letter ballot responses to Anigma, Inc. that would also include a statement
that the Suggested Change would be considered for the IBIS Version 4.X.
The amended response to Anigma, Inc. was approved by unanimous vote with two
abstentions.
AR - Bob Ross amend the responses to Anigma, Inc. to include the statement
that the Suggested Change will be considered in the next version of IBIS.
(3) Intel Comments and Draft Responses:
------
Intel: 1
Editorial
Suggested Change: Remove any reference to "tab" in the phrase "must be
separated by at least one white space or tab character". This occurs
throughout the document.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. Only "white space" will be
used. Also, in some locations a subsequent sentence related to not
recommending using the "tab" character will be removed since it is now
out of context.
Note: This text has existed since Version 1.1.
Intel: 2
Editorial
Reference: Page 42
Suggested Change: Is [Add Submodel] the only keyword that is position
dependent (within the file). This seems ugly. This keyword should contain
an explicit reference to the top level model.
Response: No change will be made.
Reason: The paragraph referenced below states that the [Add Submodel]
keyword can be positioned anywhere among the keywords after the initial
subparameters of the [Model] keyword. This is consistent with all of
the other keywords under [Model] with the exception of the [Model Spec]
keyword. Since the [Model Spec] keyword describes subparameters, it
is positioned after the list of subparameters.
The syntax checker ibischk3 detects only the position of [Model Spec].
It accepts [Add Submodel] in any location under [Model].
For reference the confusing paragraph is stated below:
| When special-purpose functional detail is needed, the top-level model can
| call one or more submodels. The [Add Submodel] keyword is positioned
| after the initial set of required and optional subparameters of the [Model]
| keyword and among the keywords under [Model].
|
There is no need to explicitly reference the top-level model since [Add
Submodel] is a keyword positioned within that specific [Model].
Intel: 3
Editorial
Reference: Page 11
Suggested Change: Last sentence of the Usage Rules section of the [Component]
description appears to have a typo.. remove the word 'and'.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. The word "and" will be deleted.
Intel: 4
Editorial
Reference: Page 20
Suggested Change: The last sentence in the introductory paragraph of usage
rules is redundant and should be removed. Sentence begins "Model names
with reserved...".
Response: We agree with this suggest change. The redundant sentence will be
deleted. Also, the document format for that paragraph which contains
shortened lines will be fixed.
Note: This text has existed since Version 1.1.
Intel: 5
Editorial
Reference: Page 23
Suggested Change: When describing the Vinh, Vinl rules and the typ column,
clarify if the typ column either does or doesn't override that declared
elsewhere. The phrase "would be expected to" isn't clear at all.
Response: We agree with this observation. The words "would be expected
to" are deleted since the intent is to describe exactly what subparameters
override other subparameters.
Intel: 6
Editorial
Reference: Page 23
Suggested Change: Delete paragraph about reversing Vinh, Vinl to mimic
hystersis. While this my be true, we have explicit parameters that
describe this functionality and we should not document or encourage an
alternate method.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. The paragraph will be
deleted since it also describes an interpretation that has not been
standardized.
Intel: 7
Editorial
Reference: Page 24
Suggested Change: the whole discussion on dynamic and static overshoot is
confusing. I can't figure out if static or dynamic overshoot implies an
absolute maximum rating or device destruction or what. Not sure how to fix,
but this does need to be clarified.
Response: We agree with this section may not be clear. We plan to add
a figure (in response to another letter ballot comment) to clarify this.
Intel: 8
Editorial
Suggested Change: Change all "S" to "s" when it is used as the abbreviation
for the unit of time as in seconds. Capital "S" stands for the unit of
conductance, Siemens, and not time. This should be done also where it
appears with prefixes, such as "n" for nano, etc.
Rationale: In general, we should follow the official standard spelling
rules of units and prefixes everywhere.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. We intend to use standardized
abbreviations throughout the document. We will correct all occurrences.
Intel: 9
Editorial
Suggested Change: I found two occurrences of "VI" in an ASCII drawing
which should be changed to "IV" to be consistent with the spelling in
section 9, "Notes on Data Derivation Method", and BIRD58.2.
Rationale: These curves are plotted current verses voltage, and the proper
order for the symbols "I" and "V" therefore is IV, not VI.
Response: We agree with correcting the problem. We will change the occurrences
of VI in the diagram to I-V. We will also change all occurrences of "V/I" and
"IV" to "I-V" for consistency.
Note: The term "V/I" has existed since Version 1.1. However, we need to
provide consistent nomenclature throughout the document.
------
In the remaining time Bob Ross gave an overview of the Intel responses. The
comment providers generally agreed with the draft responses. Bob noted that
we are rejecting the Comment 2 suggestion. Most suggested changes dealt with
some obvious problems, but some include cleaning up wording that has existed
since IBIS Version 1.1.
The confusion discussed in Comment 7 was also raised by Cisco Systems and the
draft response is consistent with the response to Cisco Systems discussed
later.
Bob asked for discussion about the response to Comment 9. The issue is that
while "V/I" has been in the IBIS documents since Version 1.1 to describe the
Current versus Voltage tables ([Pullup], [Pulldown] etc.), a few other
terms ("VI and "IV") have been introduced in other parts of the document.
Everybody agreed that we must be consistent throughout the document.
Suggestions on standardized notation included "V/I", "VI", "IV", "I(V)",
"I versus V" and "I-V". "V/I" can imply a division relationship. "VI" and
"IV" can also be confused with Roman numerals or intravenous tubes. "I(V)"
may be too restrictive in the sense that some simulators might process
tables for ECL devices as V(I). After some discussion, the general consensus
was to adopt the "I-V" nomenclature proposed in the draft response.
"V/T" or other variations are not used in the document, so its nomenclature
is not an issue. However, we would refer to voltage waveform tables as "V-T"
tables to be consistent with the "I-V" convention.
We did not vote on these draft responses to the Intel comments. Instead, we
moved on to discuss the next set of responses.
(4) Cisco Systems Comments and Draft Responses
------
Cisco Systems: 1
Editorial
Reference: Page 24
Suggested Change: Add a hysteresis diagram showing all the sub-parameters.
Rationale: Would clarify usage of Vinh+, Vinh-, Vinl+, Vinl-,
S_overshoot_high, S_overshoot_low, D_overshoot_high, D_overshoot_low,
D_overshoot_time, Pulse_high, Pulse_low, Pulse_time.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. We will add an illustration or
illustrations to clarify the meaning of the subparameters.
Cisco Systems: 2
Editorial
Reference: Page 31
Suggested Change: Change from
"..of one note per V/I table if .."
to
".. of one warning per V/I table if ..",
and change from
"Note: Line 300, Pulldown .."
to
"Warning: Line 300 Pulldown ..".
Response: We agree with this suggest change. We will make the changes
from "note" to "warning" as suggested.
Cisco Systems: 3
Editorial
Reference: Page 40-41
Suggested Change: Should provide example with 4 V/T tables instead of the
two shown. Model developers are providing 2 V/T tables following the
conditions illustrated on Page 40 & 41. Since 4 V/T tables have been
discussed extensively in the forum for accuracy reasons, please provide
example of all four cases:
1) [Rising waveform] with 50 Ohms to vdd
2) [Rising Waveform] with 50 Ohms to gnd
3) [Falling waveform] with 50 Ohms to vdd
4) [Falling Waveform] with 50 Ohms to gnd.
Response: No change will be made.
Reason: While we agree with the intent of the suggestion, the document intends
to illustrate only the syntax or portions thereof. Adding two more tables
would be redundant. Complete examples and guidelines are contained in other
documents.
Cisco Systems: 4
Editorial
Reference: Page 69
Suggested Change: Need a diagram clarification of parameters used.
Response: We agree with this suggest change. Each of the three examples will
have a corresponding diagram.
------
Bob Ross briefly reviewed the comments. Bob asked Syed Huq if he intended to
have clarification diagrams for all subparameters listed in Comment 1 or just
a diagram for the hysteresis thresholds. Syed responded that he intended
that all of the subparameters would be illustrated. After asking for
volunteers, Bob accepted the responsibility of generating text based diagrams.
AR - Bob Ross generate the diagrams in response to Cisco Systems Comment 1.
A number of people debated the merits including two more tables as proposed
in Comment 3. The draft response is to reject the suggestion since the
examples in the standard are for the purpose of illustrating the syntax. The
examples do not add up to a complete or correct IBIS model. Some alternative
suggestions were to add a note on suggested guidelines or to directly refer
to the Cookbook document in the standard. Michael Cohen asked if two rising
and two falling waveforms were required. Bob Ross responded that waveforms
were not required. Also, some technologies (such as ECL, STTL-2, etc.) or
configurations (e.g., Open_drain) might be accurately with only one rising
and one falling waveform. Any guideline statement would need to refer to a
number of different cases. Stephen Peters pointed out that the recommended
number of waveforms may change as IBIS is used in newer technologies. So we
should not specify or even make recommendations in the standard on the number
of waveforms.
In response to Comment 4, Bob asked Stephen to provide the text schematics
for the three EBD examples.
AR - Stephen Peters provide Bob Ross with text schematics in response to
Cisco Systems Comment 4.
No formal vote was taken on the Cisco Systems responses.
(5) SiQual Comments.
Bob Ross asked Matthew Flora and Chris Rokusek to help provide responses to
the SiQual Comments 1 - 6 since they deal with syntax details. [The SiQual
comments had been forwarded to Matthew and Chris and are not in these
Minutes.] Bob noted that these comments and suggested changes deal with some
undefined references (such as "DOS character set") and propose explicitly
listing the correct characters. Bob added that he provided SiQual some
of the relevant ibischk3 source code modules so that the suggested changes
would correspond exactly to how ibischk3 actually works. Since Matthew and
Chris are most familiar with the ibischk3 code, they need to review the
comments and assist in the draft responses.
Bob Ross plans to circulate the draft responses to SiQual comments during the
week of July 26, 1999 so that they can be discussed at the next meeting.
AR - Bob Ross issue Draft Responses to SiQual's comments.
Bob proposed holding the next meeting teleconference meeting in two weeks on
August 6, 1999 to continue letter ballot resolution (including responses to
SiQual's comments). This gives more time for everyone to consider draft
responses to Intel and Cisco Systems presented above prior to a vote. Also,
we may consider and possibly vote on responses to SiQual comments.
We can also discuss remaining topics scheduled at this meeting if we have
time. The subsequent meeting would be on August 20, 1999 and may involve
final ratification of the responses and revised document. Bob indicated that
he plans to have a revised Version 3.2 document with all of the accepted
responses implemented at that time.
ACCURACY SPECIFICATION DISCUSSION
In the brief time remaining, Bob Haller asked whether the committee felt that
the Accuracy Specification activity should continue. Several people
responded Yes, and the group consensus was Yes. Bob Ross commented that he
favored moving forward more rapidly by issuing it first as a Cookbook-like
document. The document needs to be tested by applying it to real examples,
and the trailer format needs to be specified and tested. The intent is to
test the document against real applications to help uncover issues or
ambiguities. This would be a step toward making it a standard.
BUG34 - NO ERROR REPORTED FOR MISSING V/I TABLE IN OUTPUT BUFFERS
Not discussed. Matthew Flora's AR is still open.
AR - Matthew Flora issue a revised BUG34 to document the conditions where
Warning messages are issued.
BUG36 - RESERVE WORDS ERROR FOR PIN MAPPING AND SERIES PIN MAPPING
Not discussed.
BUG37 - PIN MAPPING FOR UNIQUE GND AND POWER PIN GENERATES ERROR
Not discussed.
CONNECTOR PROPOSAL STATUS
Not discussed.
SIGNAL INTEGRITY REFLECTOR RECENT DISCUSSIONS
- IBIS Version 3.2 Support
- I/O Edge Rates
- Odd/Even Mode
- Simplifying Spice Models
Not discussed.
NEXT MEETING:
The next teleconference meeting will be on Friday, August 6, 1999 from 8:00
AM to 10:00 AM. (More votes on letter ballot responses are scheduled.)
==============================================================================
NOTES
IBIS CHAIR: Bob Ross (503) 685-0732, Fax (503) 685-4897
bob_ross@mentor.com
Modeling Engineer, Mentor Graphics
8005 S.W. Boeckman Road, Wilsonville, OR 97070
VICE CHAIR: Stephen Peters (503) 264-4108, Fax: (503) 264-4515
sjpeters@ichips.intel.com
Senior Hardware Engineer, Intel Corporation
M/S JF1-56
2111 NE 25th Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961
SECRETARY: Guy de Burgh (805) 988-8250, Fax: (805) 988-8259
gdeburgh@viewlogic.com
Senior Manager, Viewlogic Systems
1369 Del Norte Rd.
Camarillo, CA 93010-8437
LIBRARIAN: Jon Powell (805) 988-8250, Fax: (805) 988-8259
jonp@qdt.com
Senior Scientist, Viewlogic Systems
1385 Del Norte Rd.
Camarillo, CA 93010
WEBMASTER: Syed Huq (408) 525-3399, Fax: (408) 526-5504
shuq@cisco.com
Signal Integrity Engineer, Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
POSTMASTER: Matthew Flora (425) 869-2320, Fax: (425) 881-1008
mbflora@hyperlynx.com
Senior Engineer, HyperLynx, Inc.
17641 NE 67th Court
Redmond, WA 98052
This meeting was conducted in accordance with the EIA Legal Guides and EIA
Manual of Organization and Procedure.
The following e-mail addresses are used:
ibis-request@eda.org
To join, change, or drop from either the IBIS Open Forum Reflector
(ibis@eda.org), the IBIS Users' Group Reflector (ibis-users@eda.org)
or both. State your request.
ibis-info@eda.org
To obtain general information about IBIS, to ask specific questions
for individual response, and to inquire about joining the EIA-IBIS
Open Forum as a full Member.
ibis@eda.org
To send a message to the general IBIS Open Forum Reflector. This
is used mostly for IBIS Standardization business and future IBIS
technical enhancements. Job posting information is not permitted.
ibis-users@eda.org
To send a message to the IBIS Users' Group Reflector. This is
used mostly for IBIS clarification, current modeling issues, and
general user concerns. Job posting information is not permitted.
ibischk-bug@eda.org
To report ibischk2/3 parser bugs. The Bug Report Form Resides on
eda.org in /pub/ibis/bugs/ibischk/bugform.txt along with reported bugs.
To report s2ibis, s2ibis2 and s2iplt bugs, use the Bug Report Forms
which reside under eda.org in /pub/ibis/bugs/s2ibis/bugs2i.txt,
/pub/ibis/bugs/s2ibis2/bugs2i2.txt, & /pub/ibis/bugs/s2iplt/bugsplt.txt
respectively.
Information on IBIS technical contents, IBIS participants, and actual
IBIS models are available on the IBIS Home page found by selecting the
Electronic Information Group under:
Check the pub/ibis directory on eda.org for more information on previous
discussions and results. You can get on via FTP anonymous.
==============================================================================
Received on Mon Jul 26 17:42:13 1999
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 03 2011 - 09:52:30 PDT