IBIS Macromodel Task Group

Meeting date: 03 May 2011

Members (asterisk for those attending):
Agilent:                    * Fangyi Rao
                            * Radek Biernacki
Ansoft:                       Chris Herrick
                              Danil Kirsanov
Ansys:                        Samuel Mertens
                            * Dan Dvorscak
                              Deepak Ramaswamy
                              Jianhua Gu
                            * Curtis Clark
Arrow Electronics:          * Ian Dodd
Cadence Design Systems:       Terry Jernberg
                            * Ambrish Varma
Celsionix:                    Kellee Crisafulli
Cisco Systems:              * Mike LaBonte
                              Stephen Scearce
                              Ashwin Vasudevan
Ericsson:                     Anders Ekholm
IBM:                        * Greg Edlund
Intel:                      * Michael Mirmak
LSI Logic:                    Wenyi Jin
Mentor Graphics:            * John Angulo
                              Vladimir Dmitriev-Zdorov
                              Zhen Mu
                            * Arpad Muranyi
Micron Technology:          * Randy Wolff
NetLogic Microsystems:        Ryan Couts
Nokia-Siemens Networks:     * Eckhard Lenski
Sigrity:                      Brad Brim
                              Kumar Keshavan
                            * Ken Willis
SiSoft:                     * Walter Katz
                              Mike Steinberger
                            * Todd Westerhoff
			    * Doug Burns
Snowbush IP:                  Marcus Van Ierssel
ST Micro:                     Syed Sadeghi
Teraspeed Consulting Group: * Scott McMorrow
                            * Bob Ross
TI:                           Casey Morrison
                              Alfred Chong
Vitesse Semiconductor:        Eric Sweetman
Xilinx:                       Mustansir Fanaswalla

The meeting was lead by Arpad Muranyi

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opens:

- Mike: There is a summit meeting next week, will we still have our meeting?
- Arpad: How many will be traveling?
  - Bob: I will not attend
  - Ambrish: I will not attend
  - Randy: I will not attend
- We will meet next week

- Bob will speak on editorial work

--------------------------
Call for patent disclosure:

- None

-------------
Review of ARs:

- Bob update syntax clarification BIRD
  - Update today

- Ambrish start a BIRD on task list row 25
  - In progress, on hold

- Bob write a BIRD on correcting Table 1-3 in the spec.  (Row 23).
  - In progress, on hold

-------------
New Discussion:

Bob spoke about the new IBIS specification format editorial work:
- [Begin Algorithmic Model] will be documented
- Editorially it is quite different
- New BIRDs are expected
- Arpad: Will Walter submit a formal BIRD?
- Walter: A BIRD will be drafted for review in the ATM group
  - Future BIRDs would be submitted as updates to that BIRD
- Arpad: Will there be a BIRD for the new AMI section?
- Bob: We don't know yet
  - We have to establish rules for writing it
- Arpad: This will be worked on only in the editorial group

Arpad showed the Out/InOut BIRD draft:
- Arpad: There has been much email discussion
  - Originally this answered a question about which function returns Out strings
  - The first BIRD portion addresses that
  - This should be settled now
  - The new part is about not allowing returned data to alter simulations
  - We could put that in a separate BIRD
- Walter: Separation would be good
  - People should give presentations on their views
- Arpad: Todd suggested a portability indicator keyword
- Radek: It is not just the model, but the combination with the simulator
  - We only care if it is compliant or not
- Ken: It is more about compliance than portability
- Todd: "Compliant" is not specific enough
  - Syed says it is compliant if it uses only IBIS 5.0 syntax
  - Can I write a model using BIRD 120 today?
- Bob: Yes, but that is vendor specific until it is in an approved spec
- Radek: It would be good to have it marked as such
- Ken: That could be just comments
- Todd: Syed would not want it
- Michael M: I assume it's compliant if it passes the parser
- Bob: The parser only tests against the spec
  - The spec determines compliance
  - The parser is not a full test
- Scott: It only tests for syntactic compliance
  - The spec describes functional requirements
- Ken: Comments can be added
- Radek: Years from now it will change
  - Do we tell users to check BIRD status?
- Todd: Models can't be written to last forever
  - Compliant is an adjective
  - The question is "in accordance with" what?
- Scott: A BIRD has no legal meaning after the macro committee approves it
  - It still does not mean it's part of the spec
- Arpad: We always call it a BIRD "draft"
- Todd: "Legal" implies enforcement
  - Specification do not have that
- Walter: We need to limit this discussion
- Todd: We agree that BIRD have no official standing until approved
  - Motion to split the BIRD in two, separating the highlighted part out
- Mike seconded
- Some stated they would vote no
- Michael M: A roll call vote is needed
- Roll call vote:
  - Votes:
    Agilent:                   N
    Ansys:                     N
    Cadence Design Systems:    N
    Cisco Systems:             Y
    IBM:                       Y
    Intel:                     A
    Mentor Graphics:           N
    Micron Technology:         A
    Nokia-Siemens Networks:    A
    Sigrity:                   N
    SiSoft:                    Y
    Teraspeed Consulting Group N
  - 3 Yes, 6 No, 3 Abstain
  - The motion failed

Arpad showed the Table Clarification BIRD draft:
- Walter: Ambrish and Bob did a wonderful job
- Bob: Tables have to have at least one legitimate entry
- Ambrish: "lable2" is spelled wrongly
- Bob: We might scrap the paragraph about use of Info as output
  - We can't have this worded differently in every BIRD
- Radek: We should be able to remove it
- Bob: We need consistent use of language such as "executable models"
  - Only one example row is needed for Out parameters
  - The DLL can output any number of rows
- Radek: Does the number of columns have to be the same on every return?
- Bob: The number of columns must be specified
- Radek: Can the number rows change?
- Todd: That is unconstrained
- Bob: No statement is made about that
- Todd: It should be stated that each row is complete
- Arpad: Radek is asking about multiple calls to GetWave
- Todd: Does each call have to return data?
- Bob: Yes
- Arpad: Do we need to allow different numbers of rows?
- Ambrish: It depends on use
- Walter: We should allow different returns
- Ambrish: Some rules in the example should be moved up

Walter: I have 3 presentations to give:
  - Graphic showing where the Jitter BIRD and IBIS5.0 Jitter parameters are
    applied.
  - Backchannel Presentation 
  - Analog BIRD
- Ambrish: We they be shown next week
- Walter: I can do a private review
- Scott: I would like to see what you have also

Arpad: We should continue our email discussions

-------------
Next meeting: 17 May 2011 12:00pm PT

Next agenda:
1) Task list item discussions

-------------
IBIS Interconnect SPICE Wish List:

1) Simulator directives
