==============================================================================

IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP
Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org 

==============================================================================

Attendees from Ocober 29, 2025 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio)

ANSYS                                Curtis Clark, Wei-hsing Huang, Juliano Mologni
Arista Networks			     Jim Antonellis
Broadcom                             James Church
Chipletz			     Stephen Newberry*
Intel Corp.                          Michael Mirmak*, Xiaoning Ye
Keysight Technologies                Ming Yan
Marvell                              Steve Parker
MathWorks                            Walter Katz*
Micron Technology                    Justin Butterfield
Siemens EDA                          Weston Beal, Arpad Muranyi*, Randy Wolff*
Simberian 			     Yuriy Shlepnev
ST Microelectronics                  Aurora Sanna
Synopsys                             Ted Mido, Edna Moreno
University of Illinois               Jose Schutt-Aine

==============================================================================
Michael Mirmak convened the meeting.  No patents were declared.

The October 17 meeting minutes were not available at meeting time for review.

Michael asked about the status of SPIM development in the IBIS-ATM and related
meetings - are there any features there that would require changes in either
Port Mapping or Touchstone 3.0 generally?

Arpad Muranyi replied that there are no impacts from SPIM development on 
Touchstone.  He added that there is no impact on the rest of IBIS at this 
point, either. 

Randy Wolff noted that the current Port Mapping draft has already removed 
references to power delivery.  If needed, after SPIM/PIM approval, we could 
put them back. 

The team reviewed the current Port Mapping draft, focusing on the examples.

For Example 1, Randy suggested adding a short statement explaining the 
application of the user-defined parameter used there.  The statement should 
explain how the parameter is related to measurement.  Michael asked whether
the parameter might be better used in a later example, rather than in an
example associated with a symbol.  Michael took the AR to make this change. [AR]

Arpad suggested that, in Example 2a, the text make it clear that the Emitter
is used as the reference; last time the team "got stuck" discussing 
Logical and Physical descriptions for this example, instead of the referencing.

Randy asked whether it was reasonable to have a port map with only Logical 
entries.  Would anything change if this example was generated from a measurement?  

Michael suggested that the reference is the emitter in this case.

Arpad asked whether the A_gnd reference on the Emitter could be connected in 
another way.  Is the reference Emitter or A_gnd?  He suggested it was more 
appropriately the Emitter.  Randy replied that we can't legally use "Logical Emitter"
for this example.  

Michael noted that the parameter declarations are structurally inconsistent: 
Physical and Logical are pair names, but Reference is still a node

Randy noted that a differential port can actually be a 3- or 4-terminal connection 
in the lab (e.g., "GSSG").

Arpad replied that we are still back to nodal declarations; the two parts *together* 
make up a port.  Randy observed that the original Hyperlynx-based port-mapping 
description included terminals.  Arpad agreed, stating that additional information 
was provided along with the signal names associated wth the nodes.

Michael took the AR to clarify which parameters are nodal and which are port-based; 
some notes on this are already part of the Draft 20 document being edited.

Arpad suggested that the use of nodal and port-based parameters could create an 
interaction with SPIM, which supports defining clusters of power nodes, clusters of 
ground nodes, etc. as belonging to a port.  The document may need a Usage declaration
of "PIM" again, to support these.  

Randy suggested that a structure similar to "Reference Logical Emitter" is needed 
for Example 2a.  Michael replied that the document needs to define an entirely new 
syntax for these examples.

Arpad stated that the team should delete "Reference" in "Reference Logical Emitter".
Randy proposed using the "-" character.  

Arpad asked whether the  "-" symbol should be used instead of "Reference".
Randy replied that we want to use "Reference" as a parameter associated with other
name-value pairs; the Reference subset of legal name-value pairs may not include Side
or Net, however.  

Arpad observed that, in such syntax, nodes would have to be repeated, but ports would not.

Randy suggested that "Logical" could be a label for positive and negative terminals, 
making it a nodal label.  Michael reviewed the document, labeling each name-value pair as
either nodal or port-based.

Arpad asked whether Usage was created in response to the inadequacy of Physical and Logical
name-value pairs for IBIS, EMD, etc. applications.

Due to time, Arpad moved to adjourn the meeting; Randy seconded.  The meeting adjourned 
without objection.

==============================================================================