Subject: Re: Model Version Supported

From: Don A Telian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 17:33:28 PST

Text item: 

        Speaking from a group that releases a good number of IBIS 
        models, we would like to release 2.1 models ASAP.  However, we 
        do not want to do so too early because many simulators may choke 
        on them (upsetting our customers).
        
        I would like to see the IBIS Committee come up with a date, by 
        consensus, when semi. vendors can confidently release 2.1 
        models.  I'll assume this date will be after tool vendors have 
        had time to integrate the 2.1 parser, which sounds to me like 
        January '95?
        
        Again, please publish a date ALL of the tool vendors are 
        comfortable with.
        
        Thanks,
        Donald Telian, Intel 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Model Version Supported
Author:  [email-masked] at Internet_Gateway
Date:    8/8/94 4:31 PM

To IBIS Committee:

Regarding the question whether should Version 1.1 level models be designated
Version 2.1 when Version 2.1 is stabilized (general opinion at last Fridays
meeting was NO), I now feel that BOTH versions should be supported.

Version 1.1 provides essential functionality compatible with everyone's
parser, but only through a Version 2.1 designation will certain additional,
potentially useful capabilties be available, even for Version 1.1 models.
One useful addition for all Version 1.1 models consists of the Vmeas,
Cref, Rref, Vref test setup.

So, I propose that all model producers consider posting, where possible,
BOTH Version 1.1 level models and Version 2.1 level models with the
IBIS Version 2.1 extensions.

This can be done in several ways:

(1) Post models in a Ver1.1 directory and also in a Ver2.1 directory,

(2) Or possibly, post models at the Lowest level (Ver1.1). but through
a defined comment string (e.g. "|#*#") add in the Version 2.1 features
which can be easily inserted when the comment string is deleted with a
text editor (along with converting to [IBIS_Ver] 2.1).

I would favor (1) since tested models of each Version are directly available,
but that puts some burden on the Vendor to keep changes to models
in Sync in two files.  Choice (2) is interesting, especially if there were
a standardized comment scheme so a simple script could test and do the
conversions AUTOMATICALLY on ANY file.  Care would have to be taken to
allow any [Comment char], and there may be future, unanticipated compatibility
problems regarding possible new features and changes.

Comments?

Bob Ross,
Interconnectix, Inc.

Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

Subject: Model Version Supported
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] ( Bob Ross)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 15:49:40 PDT

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon Powell)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 12:49:40 PDT

Jan 95 is a reasonable date for Quad.

Not to say we won't have it sooner but we can guarantee jan.

jonp