Re: Connector spec swathing

Gus,

I don't consider any of this proprietary. I think its more important
that its unambiguous so there is confidence that the intention of the
connector vendors is followed when using the models. Every simulator
should use the same method.

Thanks,

Chris

apanella@molex.com wrote:
>
> So then, the recommendation would be to have the IBIS Connector Model
> Specification _explicitly_ state how each simulator will implement the expansion
> from the keywords and parameters already given in the specification.
>
> If the recommendation is acceptable (it is for me)... Would it be acceptable by
> the simulator companies? If not.. is there a different option?
>
> In the discussion of this topic in the subcommittee, I got the impression that
> the expansion method of matrices was somewhat seen as a proprietary technology.
> As such, I wanted to build in enough keywords and usage rules that would allow
> me to assign values that would _lessen_ the likelihood of incorrect simulator
> implementation (assuming of course that I correctly defined the model, swath
> size, and related keywords...)
>
> I will take this up at our next IBIS Connector Model subcommittee
> teleconference.
>
> _gus: 630-527-4617
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: Re: Connector spec swathing
> Author: chris <chris_reid@mentorg.com>
> Date: 6/14/00 9:13 AM
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your illustration of my point. Clearly we have
> exactly the same concern.
>
> Gus,
>
> Yes, including the larger matrix that is supposed to be expandable
> to a full banded matrix would be useful, but it should also include
> instructions on just how that smaller matrix is supposed to be used
> to get the full banded matrix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> <SNIP>
Received on Wed Jun 14 13:14:12 2000