Re: IBIS Connector Specification Editorial Review

Regarding the header section ....

I agree that the header section should be EXACTLY the same
as the other IBIS files (which should be EXACTLY the same
as each other), but there are some good points here, that
probably should make their way to all IBIS files.

There should be a document describing the header section,
that others should reference, not repeat.

Basic syntax rules should also be consistent, and stated
only once in a document that applys to all IBIS family
files. (max lengths, case sensitivity, basic form,
optional parameters, how scoping is specified, ...)

In general, I think the committee should not legislate
aesthetics. The existing IBIS standard goes way too far at
legislating aesthetics.

Now, I take issue with Bob's comment ......
> 7. I recommend eliminating the [Web Site], [Email] and [Redistribution]
> keywords at this time the following reasons:
> - Not consistent with IBIS Version 3.2 files - they are NOT a common
> keywords.
> - The information can be easily handled within the [Source], [Notes] and
> [Copyright] keywords
> - The removal will simpify the parser and document
> - With Company mergers, acquitions, name changes, etc. these keywords
> may contain out of date information.
> - The only legal terms should be [Disclaimer] and [Copyright]. Business
> conditions implied by the [Redistribution] keyword are typically
> spelled out in detail in the [Copyright] keyword or do not seem
> appropriate in a data file. Only the [Copyright] keyword is "required"
> by IBIS to be in "derivative" models; the others are recommended.

In this case, I believe that the new fields should be
added. The old ones Disclaimer and Copyright are not
really necessary because they could be in a general comment.

Actually, one could say that the whole header could just be
a comment. The only reasons not to do this are 1. to make
sure the info is not omitted, and 2. to assist in
automation in processing libraries.

The new ones [Web Site], [Email] and [Redistribution]
really do serve a purpose, and should be there in a
specific form. One reason is that some simulator vendors
supply a library of models with the simulator. This is a
great convenience to the customers, but can be a big
headache to maintain. With these fields as suggested here,
the process can be more automated. Without them, it is
necessary to manually process every file.

Therefore, I recommend that they be added to other IBIS
files, too.

The tree diagram (posted by Bob Ross) should be
incorporated as official. (Same goes for the other IBIS
files.)
Received on Mon Jan 10 23:07:20 2000