From owner-ibis Thu Jul 1 07:43:39 1999 Received: from mailgate.cadence.com (mailgate.Cadence.COM [158.140.2.1]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id HAA16813 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by mailgate.cadence.com (8.8.5/8.6.8) id HAA25016 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zip.Cadence.COM(158.140.103.36) by mailgate.cadence.com via smap (mjr-v1.2) id xma930839853.025011; Thu, 1 Jul 99 07:37:33 -0700 Received: from cadence.com (d15814010552 [158.140.105.52]) by zip.Cadence.COM (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA16183 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <377B7D26.B70D88A0@cadence.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:37:26 -0400 From: Mike LaBonte Organization: Cadence Design Systems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org Subject: Re: [Driver Schedule] question References: <3.0.5.32.19990629130947.00b76b10@hyperwall> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that a [Driver Schedule] should not make reference to [Model Selector] names. The description gives a clue: | Keyword: [Model Selector] | Required: No. | Description: Used to pick a [Model] from a list of [Model]s for a pin which | uses a programmable buffer. [Model Selector]s are for use by pins. I would not expect [Model Selector] names to be referenced by the [Driver Schedule] section of a buffer [Model], because buffer stages are not pins. Also, the golden parser only attempts to look up [Model Selectors] when referenced in a [Pin] section. Mike LaBonte Matthew Flora wrote: > > Hello, > > The [Driver Schedule] keyword supplies a list of other models which are > brought into the circuit at specified times. > > My question is: > Can the list of scheduled models contain references to [Model Selectors]'s as > well as to [Model]'s? > > Although this would make things flexible, it would also require more user > involvement at a low level. > > Thanks in advance, > Matthew Flora > IBIS Open Forum Postmaster > (425) 869-2320 PH > (425) 881-1008 FAX > mbflora@hyperlynx.com > HyperLynx, 17641 NE 67th Court, Redmond, WA 98052 USA From owner-ibis Wed Jul 14 13:40:34 1999 Received: from isis.vlsi.com (relayhost.vlsi.com [134.27.20.24]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA28652 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smtp@localhost) by isis.vlsi.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA03624 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:33:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: isis.vlsi.com: smtp set sender to using -f Received: from (tem-pbx1.tempe.vlsi.com [134.27.128.26]) by isis.vlsi.com via smap (V2.0) id xma003620; Wed, 14 Jul 99 13:33:41 -0700 Received: from vlsi.com (witsend.tempe.vlsi.com [134.27.133.12]) by tem-pbx1.tempe.vlsi.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 3ZDV3H4D; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:33:40 -0700 Sender: dsession@isis.vlsi.com Message-ID: <378CF424.B38C77F6@vlsi.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:33:40 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: VLSI Technology Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IBIS Mailing list Subject: Receiver timing working group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone interested in doing the usual sweat-for-no-appreciation towards improved receiver characterizations? If so, drop me a direct note as we're putting together a working group. We'll be having a preliminary face-to-face next week. -- D. C. Sessions dc.sessions@vlsi.com From owner-ibis Fri Jul 16 08:02:38 1999 Received: from glace.qu.ca.ibm.net (glace.qu.ca.ibm.net [129.37.164.60]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id IAA28227 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:02:38 -0700 (PDT) From: ddasilva@Celestica.com Received: from wintermute.advantis.ca (wintermute.advantis.ca [204.187.94.3]) by glace.qu.ca.ibm.net (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA46676 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:50:20 -0500 Received: from Celestica.com ([32.69.41.45]) by wintermute.advantis.ca (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA70538 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:54:29 -0500 Received: from tormta3.tor.cel.com (tormta3.tor.cel.com [32.69.41.171]) by Celestica.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id KAA31366 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by tormta3.tor.cel.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 852567B0.0051E810 ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:54:38 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: CELESTICA To: ibis@eda.org Message-ID: <852567B0.0051E414.00@tormta3.tor.cel.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:55:34 -0400 Subject: More Info Needed on DDR IBIS Issue Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hey there, I'd like to get more info on the slew rate specification issue concerning DDR components. Here is the excerpt from the IBIS Open Forum minutes which introduced the problem. JEDEC JC-42.3 REPORT D.C. Sessions who serves in a (mutual) liaison roll between the IBIS Open Forum and JEDEC JC-42 reported on a recent Vancouver JEDEC JC-42.3 meeting concerning Double Data Rate SDRAMs. The JEDEC committee concluded that there is a characterization issue: the slew rate of 1V/ns depends on the loading conditions. The JC-42.3 Committee requests a specification (from the IBIS Open Forum) on derating the slew rate. The reason is that the current derating method works in test conditions, but not in real designs. Is this the Committee Letter Ballot JC-42.3-99-107 ? I would great appreciate any new information on the situation. Thanks ! From owner-ibis Fri Jul 16 14:04:56 1999 Received: from relay1.wv.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.42]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id OAA01059 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com by relay1.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40F) id NAA07303; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mentor.com by em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40R) id NAA09165; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bob_ross@mentorg.com Message-ID: <378F9CE3.F118E7FC@mentor.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:58:11 -0700 From: Bob Ross X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org CC: bob_ross@mentorg.com Subject: IBIS MEETING AGENDA July 23, 1999 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IBIS Open Forum Meeting Agenda for 7/23/99 Bridge Number Reservation # Passcode (916) 356-9200 8-27037 9387986 All meetings are 8:00 AM to 9:55 AM Pacific Time. When you call into the meeting, ask for the IBIS Open Forum hosted by Will Hobbs and give the Reservation Number and Passcode. 8:00 Check-In, Intros, Announcements Ross - Intros of New IBIS Participants, Meeting Quorum Ross - Membership Update and Treasurers Report Ross/Fleming - Review of Previous Meeting's Minutes (and ARs) Ross - Miscellany/Announcements All - Press & Web Page Updates Huq, All - New Models Available, Library Update Powell, All - Opens for New Issues All 8:15 Administrative and Project Discussions International/External Progress - IEC 62014-1 (IBIS Version 2.1) Ross/Fleming - pr EIAJ ED-5302 Standard for I/O Interface Model for Integrated Circuits (IMIC) Raghuram/Ross - 93/67/NP IBIS and EMC Simulation Perrin - JEDEC JC-16.2 Modeling and Testing Sessions IBIS Summit Design Automation Conference Feedback Ross/Fleming IBIS (East) Users Group Meetings Edlund - IBIS Summit October 14, 1999 IBIS DesignCon2000 Summit and Sponsorship Ross SP-4557 - IBIS Version 3.2 Letter Ballot Results Ross/Fleming s2ibis3 Committee Report Cohen Input Specification Meeting Peters Cookbook Status Peters IBIS Model Review Committee Flora New Administrative Issues All 8:45 Technical Discussion SP-4557 Letter Ballot Comments Ross Accuracy Specification Discussion Haller BUG34 - No Error Reported for Missing V/I Tables in Flora Output Buffers BUG36 - Reserve Words Error for Pin Mapping and Ross Series Pin Mapping BUG37 - Pin Mapping for Unique GND or POWER Pin Ross Generates Error Connector Proposal Status Flora/Crisafulli Number of Points in VT table Muranyi Signal Integrity Reflector Recent Discussions All - IBIS 3.2 Support - I/O Edge Rates - Odd/Even Mode - Simplifying Spice Models New Technical Issues All 9:50 Wrap Up and Next Meetings Plans Peters 9:55 Sign Off From owner-ibis Wed Jul 21 13:32:57 1999 Received: from relay1.wv.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.42]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA19816 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com by relay1.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40F) id NAA22223; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mentor.com by em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40R) id NAA14959; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bob_ross@mentorg.com Message-ID: <37962CE1.539BE522@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:26:09 -0700 From: Bob Ross X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org CC: cfleming@eia.org Subject: IBIS DRAFT RESPONSES TO SP-4557 COMMENTS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To IBIS Members: The response to the letter ballot on SP-4557 for ratification of IBIS Version 3.2 as EIA-656-A is 17 Yes and 0 No. Four of the Yes votes contained comments. Some proposed responses to the comments are given below for discussion and possible ratification at the IBIS meeting on July 23, 1999. We may revise our DRAFT responses to some comments based on the discussion at the meeting. These DRAFT responses were generated and contain input from Bob Ross (Mentor Graphics), Stephen Peters and Arpad Muranyi (Intel Corporation) and Guy de Burgh (Viewlogic Systems). Bob Ross Mentor Graphics ******************************************************************************* EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO MENTOR GRAPHICS COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 4557 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. ******************************************************************************* EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO ANIGMA, INC. COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 4557 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: Committment 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. ******************************************************************************* EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO INTEL CORPORATION COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 4557 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 thruout 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 reponse 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. Capitol "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 occurences. 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 occurences of VI in the diagram to I-V. We will also change all occurences 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. ******************************************************************************* EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO CISCO SYSTEMS COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 4557 Cisco Systems: 1 Editorial Reference: Page 24 Suggested Change: Add a hysteresis diagram showing all the sub-parameters. Rationale: Would clarifiy 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 protions thereoff. 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. ******************************************************************************* From owner-ibis Mon Jul 26 17:42:13 1999 Received: from dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net (dfw7-1.relay.mail.uu.net [199.171.54.106]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id RAA21040 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uucp2.uu.net by dfw7sosrv11.alter.net with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: uucp2.uu.net [192.48.96.82]) id QQgzpi01164 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:35:52 GMT Received: from qdt.UUCP by uucp2.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL ; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:34:54 -0400 Received: from camarillo.viewlogic.com (b1b) by qdt.viewlogic.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12316; Mon, 26 Jul 99 17:40:21 PDT Received: from f22.viewlogic.com by camarillo.viewlogic.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29275; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:40:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:40:18 -0700 From: guy@camarillo.viewlogic.com Message-Id: <199907270040.RAA29275@camarillo.viewlogic.com> To: ibis@eda.org 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: http://www.eia.org Check the pub/ibis directory on eda.org for more information on previous discussions and results. You can get on via FTP anonymous. ============================================================================== From owner-ibis Tue Jul 27 14:05:58 1999 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.103]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id OAA26178 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:05:57 -0700 (PDT) From: micohen@us.ibm.com Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA232788 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:59:24 -0400 Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.04) with SMTP id QAA60686 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:59:27 -0400 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 852567BB.00735155 ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:59:34 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS To: ibis@eda.org Message-ID: <852567BB.00734FBE.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:56:43 -0400 Subject: Re: IBIS Open Forum Meeting Minutes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Guy, Bob: The technical term is "WANning", not "whamming". WAN = Wide Area Network. Regards, Michael Cohen IBM Personal Systems Group Design Tools Department D-26D/B-201/R-D104H 3039 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: 919-543-4042 (T/L 441-4042) FAX: 919-543-8221 (T/L 441-8221) Internet Address: micohen@us.ibm.com IBM Internal Addresses: From Lotus Notes (#1): Michael Cohen/Raleigh/IBM From Lotus Notes (#2): micohen@ibmus From VM: micohen@ibmusm21 guy@camarillo.viewlogic.com on 07/26/99 08:40:18 PM To: ibis@eda.org cc: Subject: 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: http://www.eia.org Check the pub/ibis directory on eda.org for more information on previous discussions and results. You can get on via FTP anonymous. ============================================================================== From owner-ibis Tue Jul 27 15:43:09 1999 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id PAA26372 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mediaone.net (csrode.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.144.79]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07898 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Sender: csrode@chmls06.mediaone.net Message-ID: <379E3348.105F0905@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:31:36 -0400 From: "Christian S. Rode" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org Subject: Lame modeling question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all. When converting IBIS (2.1) to run in SPICE, should the risetime be used to ramp the supply voltages to model the predriver slew? That is, the VI transfer curve is table-driven current source based on the voltage from the drive pin to an ideal voltage source having a finite rise (fall) time. Thanks to all. Chris Rode From owner-ibis Tue Jul 27 17:26:24 1999 Received: from mailhost.avanticorp.com (uucp@mailhost.avanticorp.com [207.220.204.13]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id RAA26600 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:26:24 -0700 (PDT) From: nikolai@avanticorp.com Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mailhost.avanticorp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05929; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from splash.src.avanticorp.com(172.18.10.24) via SMTP by shamu.avanticorp.com, id smtpdAAA0vEmEp; Tue Jul 27 17:19:54 1999 Received: from iris.src.avanticorp.com (iris.src.avanticorp.com [172.18.5.78]) by splash.src.avanticorp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07768; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nikolai@localhost) by iris.src.avanticorp.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07180; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199907280011.RAA07180@iris.src.avanticorp.com> To: ibis@eda.org, csrode@mediaone.net Subject: Re: Lame modeling question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Hi, IMHO IBIS output buffer (just to be specific) does not have input voltage slew rate. Hence if you do spice -> ibis conversion, you should start changing input voltage at t=0 and record output waveform (which may be [at least in theory] input voltage waveform dependent). If you convert ibis -> spice, you do not have the above mentioned problem, because some information is already lost, so your spice buffer MUST have digital input, that is respond to threshold voltage only. You do not have input impedance of the buffer in ibis file, don't you. Therefore, input voltage slew rate is irrelevant. Nik :-) From owner-ibis@server.eda.org Tue Jul 27 17:05 PDT 1999 :-) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:31:36 -0400 :-) From: "Christian S. Rode" :-) X-Accept-Language: en :-) MIME-Version: 1.0 :-) To: ibis@eda.org :-) Subject: Lame modeling question :-) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit :-) :-) Hello all. :-) :-) When converting IBIS (2.1) to run in SPICE, should the risetime be used :-) to :-) ramp the supply voltages to model the predriver slew? :-) :-) That is, the VI transfer curve is table-driven current source based :-) on the voltage from the drive pin to an ideal voltage source having a :-) finite rise (fall) time. :-) :-) Thanks to all. :-) Chris Rode :-) From owner-ibis Fri Jul 30 09:59:18 1999 Received: from relay1.wv.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.42]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id JAA12049 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com by relay1.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40F) id JAA26495; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mentor.com by em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40R) id JAA21475; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bob_ross@mentorg.com Message-ID: <37A1D84B.97F92B33@mentor.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:52:27 -0700 From: Bob Ross X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org Subject: IBIS Meeting Agenda 8/6/99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IBIS Open Forum Meeting Agenda for 8/6/99 Bridge Number Reservation # Passcode (916) 356-9200 8-34299 4495256 All meetings are 8:00 AM to 9:55 AM Pacific Time. When you call into the meeting, ask for the IBIS Open Forum hosted by Will Hobbs and give the Reservation Number and Passcode. 8:00 Check-In, Intros, Announcements Ross - Intros of New IBIS Participants, Meeting Quorum Ross - Membership Update and Treasurers Report Ross/Fleming - Review of Previous Meeting's Minutes (and ARs) Ross - Miscellany/Announcements All - Press & Web Page Updates Huq, All - New Models Available, Library Update Powell, All - Opens for New Issues All 8:15 Administrative and Project Discussions International/External Progress - IEC 62014-1 (IBIS Version 2.1) Ross/Fleming - pr EIAJ ED-5302 Standard for I/O Interface Model for Integrated Circuits (IMIC) Raghuram/Ross - 93/67/NP IBIS and EMC Simulation Perrin - JEDEC JC-16.2 Modeling and Testing Sessions ANSI Letter Ballot Report on IBIS Version 3.2 Fleming/Ross IBIS (East) Users Group Meetings Haller - IBIS Summit October 14, 1999 S2ibis3 Committee Activities Cohen Cookbook Status Peters IBIS Model Review Committee Flora New Administrative Issues All 8:35 Technical Discussion SP-4557 Letter Ballot Comments Ross - Intel Comments Vote - Cisco Systems Comments Vote - SiQual Comments Vote - Revised Version 3.2 Accuracy Specification Discussion Haller/Edlund - Signal Integrity Reflector Recent Discussions BUG34 - No Error Reported for Missing V/I Tables in Flora Output Buffers BUG36 - Reserve Words Error for Pin Mapping and Ross Series Pin Mapping BUG37 - Pin Mapping for Unique GND or POWER Pin Ross Generates Error Input Specification Peters Connector Proposal Status Flora Number of Points in VT table Muranyi Signal Integrity Reflector Recent Discussions All - IBIS 3.2 Support - I/O Edge Rates - Odd/Even Mode - Simplifying Spice Models New Technical Issues All 9:50 Wrap Up and Next Meetings Plans Peters 9:55 Sign Off From owner-ibis Fri Jul 30 10:10:05 1999 Received: from relay1.wv.mentorg.com (relay1.mentorg.com [192.94.38.42]) by server.eda.org (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA12088 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com by relay1.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40F) id KAA27324; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mentor.com by em-wv03.wv.mentorg.com (8.8.8/CF5.40R) id KAA23480; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bob_ross@mentorg.com Message-ID: <37A1DAD3.568537C3@mentor.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:03:15 -0700 From: Bob Ross X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ibis@eda.org Subject: IBIS Draft Responses to Letter Ballot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To IBIS Members: We approved the DRAFT responses to the Mentor Graphics and Anigma, Inc. letter ballot on SP-4557 at the July 23, 1999. We will consider approval of the Intel Corporation and Cisco Systems responses documented in the July 23, 1999 Minutes at the next IBIS meeting scheduled for Friday, August 6, 1999. We will also consider the responses to the letter ballot comments submitted by SiQual, Inc. These are included below for your review. We may revise our DRAFT responses to some comments based on our discussion at the meeting. Bob Ross Mentor Graphics ******************************************************************************* EIA IBIS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO SIQUAL, INC. COMMENTS TO STANDARDS PROPOSAL NO. 4557 SiQual: 1 Editorial Reference: Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES", paragraph 1 Suggested Change: Change From: | 1) The content of the files is case sensitive, except for reserved | words and keywords. File names must be all lower case. To (delete last sentence): | 1) The content of the files is case sensitive, except for reserved | words and keywords. Rationale: The file name restriction is redundant, and should be covered only in paragraph 3, which pertains to file names. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 2 Editorial Reference: Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES", paragraph 3 Suggested Change: Change From: | 3) File names used in the IBIS file must only have lower case characters to | enhance UNIX compatibility. File names should have a basename of no | more than twenty characters followed by a period, followed by a file | name extension of no more than three characters. File names must not | contain characters that are illegal in DOS. To: (shorten first sentence, replace third sentence) | 3) File names used in the IBIS file must only have lower case characters. | File names should have a basename of no more than twenty characters | followed by a period ('.') , followed by a file name extension of no | more than three characters. The file name and extension must use | characters from the set (space, ' ', 0x20 is not included): | | A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _ ^ $ ~ ! # % & - { } ) ( @ ' ` | | The file name and extension are recommended to be lower case on | systems that support such names. Rationale: 1) References to specific software or products is not precise. 2) The phrase "to enhance UNIX compatibility" is wrong. 3) The phrase "illegal in DOS" is not defined. 4) The "golden parser" code allows the following characters in file names The allowed character set is currently defined by the "golden parser" as (the space character, ' ', 0x20 is not included): A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 _ ^ $ ~ ! # % & - { } ) ( @ ' ` . Note: the illegal characters are therefore: SP(0x20) " * + , / : ; < = > ? [ \ ] | DEL(0x7F) The period '.' should not be allowed, as it is specified as the file name/extension delimiter. 5) From "hdr.c" (part of the "golden parser", no version info in file) /* DOS restrictions */ if (!isalpha(*pc) && !isdigit(*pc) && (*pc != '_') && (*pc != '^') && (*pc != '$') && (*pc != '~') && (*pc != '!') && (*pc != '#') && (*pc != '%') && (*pc != '&') && (*pc != '-') && (*pc != '{') && (*pc != '}') && (*pc != ')') && (*pc != '(') && (*pc != '@') && (*pc != '\'') && (*pc != '`') && (*pc != '.')) { ERRLOG_LineError( "File_name '%s' contains a character '%c' that is illegal for DOS.", pHdr->sFile_name, *pc); } Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 3 Editorial Reference: Section 3, Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES", paragraph 6 Suggested Change: Change From: | 6) Keywords must be enclosed in square brackets, [], and must start in | column 1 of the line. To: (add additional sentences) | 6) Keywords must be enclosed in square brackets, [], and must start in | column 1 of the line. No space or tab is allowed after the opening | bracket '[' or before the closing bracket ']'. If used, only one | space (' ') or underscore ('_') character separates the parts of a | multi-word keyword. Rationale: This is not specified by the standard, but is enforced by the "golden parser." If required, this behavior should be spelled out in the standard. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change, but with the following additional clarifications: Change "after" to "immediately after" and "before" to "immediately before". SiQual: 4 Editorial Reference: Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES", paragraph 14 Suggested Change: Change From: | 14) Only ASCII characters, as defined in ANSI Standard X3.4-1986, may be | used in an IBIS file. The use of characters with codes greater than | hexadecimal 07F is not allowed. Also, ASCII control characters | (those numerically less than hexadecimal 20) are not allowed, except | for tabs or in a line termination sequence. As mentioned in item 10 | above, the use of tab characters is discouraged. To: (change second sentence) | . . . The use of characters with codes greater than | hexadecimal 07E is not allowed. . . . Rationale: The ASCII character DEL (0x7F) is not consistently implemented across systems. It is often non-printable, and when printed, is not the same on different systems. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 5 Editorial Reference: Section 4, "FILE HEADER INFORMATION", Keyword: [File Name] Suggested Change: Change From: | Usage Rules: The file name must not be longer than 24 characters (including | the extension). The file name must not use characters that | are illegal in DOS. In addition, the file name must be all | lower case, and use the extension ".ibs". The file name must | be the actual name of the file. To: (replace first two sentences, change third sentence) | Usage Rules: The file name must conform to the rules in paragraph 3 of | Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES." In | addition, the file name must use the extension ".ibs", | ".pkg", or ".ebd". The file name must be the actual | name of the file. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rationale: 1) File naming rules must be consistent and defined only in one place. Specifically, Section 3, "GENERAL SYNTAX RULES AND GUIDELINES" para 1: defines case of file names as all lower (this should move to para 3) para 3: defines filename length and format as twenty character name + period + three character extension 2) To be consistent with Section 7, "PACKAGE MODELING" and section 8, "ELECTRICAL BOARD DESCRIPTION", the ".pkg" and ".ebd" must be allowed. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 6 Editorial Reference: Section 4, "FILE HEADER INFORMATION", Keyword: [Comment Char] Suggested Change: Change From: | Usage Rules: The new comment character to be defined must be followed by | the underscore character and the letters "char". For example: | "|_char" redundantly redefines the comment character to be | the pipe character. The new comment character is in effect | only following the [Comment Char] keyword. The following | characters MAY NOT be used: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P | Q R S T U V W X Y Z a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u | v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [ ] . _ / = + - To: (change last sentence) | . . . The following | characters MAY be used: | | ! " # $ % & ' * , : ; < > ? @ ^ ` | ~ Rationale: 1) For clarity, definition of a limited set of characters should be terms of those allowed, not those disallowed. 2) Based on the current wording and paragraph 14 of section three, the allowed [Comment Char] list is (ASCII hex shown first): | 20 SP | 21 ! | 22 " | 23 # | 24 $ | 25 % | 26 & | 27 ' | | 28 ( | 29 ) | 2A * | | 2C , | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3A : | 3B ; | 3C < | | 3E > | 3F ? | | 40 @ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5C \ | | 5E ^ | | | 60 ` | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7B { | 7C | | 7D } | 7E ~ | 7F DEL| Of this list: 0x20 'SP' - is wrong 0x7F 'DEL' - is inconsistently implemented across systems 0x5C '\' - is commonly used as an escape meta-character 0x28 '(', 0x29 ')' - paired delimiters should be reserved for future 0x7B '(', 0x7D ')' use by the standard 3) The "golden parser" program 'ibischk3' implements per the standard: From "parse.c" (part of the "golden parser", no version info in file) /* list of chars that cannot be the comment char */ static char gpcBadCommChars[] = "0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]._/=+-"; Response: We that the permitted comment characters should be listed as suggested. However, since the `\', `(', `)', `{', and `}' characters are already permitted by the standard and by the ibischk3 parser code, we are including them in the list. We may consider reducing the number of permitted comment characters in IBIS Version 4.0. The amended list is | ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * , : ; < > ? @ \ ^ ` { | } ~ SiQual: 7 Editorial Reference: Section 5, "COMPONENT DESCRIPTION"; [Component] keyword, Sub-Param Usage Rules, paragraph 3 Suggested Change: Change From: | . . . The default location is at the 'Pin'. | However, the 'Die' location is also available for either or | and both subparameters. To (shorten existing second sentence, then insert new second sentence): | . . . Allowed values for either sub-parameter | are 'Die' or 'Pin'. The default location is at the 'Pin'. Rationale: Clarification of wording. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 8 Editorial Reference: Section 6a, "ADD SUBMODEL DESCRIPTION"; sub-section "SUBMODEL:", paragraph 4 Suggested Change: Change From: < Move paragraph 4 and list of keywords to the [Submodel] keyword description > | The following set of keywords that are defined under the [Model] keyword are | support by the [Submodel] keyword: | | [Pulldown] | [Pullup] | [GND Clamp] | [POWER Clamp] | [Ramp] | [Rising Waveform] | [Falling Waveform] To (correct spelling of "supported" in first sentence, add new paragraph): | The only required subparameter in [Submodel] is Submodel_type to define the | list of submodel types. The other subparameters under [Model] are not | permitted under the [Submodel] keyword. | | The following set of keywords that are defined under the [Model] keyword are | supported by the [Submodel] keyword: | | [Pulldown] | [Pullup] | [GND Clamp] | [POWER Clamp] | [Ramp] | [Rising Waveform] | [Falling Waveform] | At least one of the [Pulldown], [Pullup], [GND Clamp], [POWER Clamp] is < | required. If the [Submodel] describes a driver, the [Ramp] keyword is < | required. < Rationale: The initial text is redundant, since the proper location is in the [Submodel] keyword description. The additional paragraph stipulates that some reason must exist for a [Submodel] definition. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change. SiQual: 9 Editorial Reference: Section 6a, "ADD SUBMODEL DESCRIPTION"; keyword [Submodel]; Sub-Param Usage Rules, paragraph _ Suggested Change: Change From: | . . . The | submodel name must match the one that is listed under the | [Add Submodel] To (in second sentence, change "under the" to "under a"): | . . . The | submodel name must match the one that is listed under a | [Add Submodel] keyword . . . Rationale: The wording is not correct. Response: We agree with this Suggested Change.