[ibis-macro] Re: Comments on BIRD 107.1
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:50:59 -0400
IBIS-ATM,
In an attempt to simplify the IBIS-ATM review of 107.1 I took the liberty of
moving this discussion into the 21st century by putting 104.1 into a word
document, turn on highlight changes, and incorporate the 107.1 changes so
that we can do some simple things like see the changes in place. I suspect
that we will need to convert this back into a text document when all done -
what a shame.
I also entered in some of the recent conversation about 2.3 Step 4 directly
into the document - again to make it easier to resolve this final point.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 7:53 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Comments on BIRD 107.1
Walter,
Sounds like we will need to talk about this on Tuesday.
I did notice the usage of the word "filter" in those
sections, and I have no problem with them. If the Init
function applies the tap coefficients, it does filter.
If the GetWave function applies some other tricks, it
filters. However, if the EDA tool is only expected to
take the output of Init, and convolve that with the
stimulus bit pattern, it does not filter anything, it
simply combines them. This is why I got hung up on this.
If we used the word filter for that, we open the door
for all kinds of processing which I don't this was
the intension.
Now, how can we express these thoughts without using
the specific word "convolution"? Well, in this case
we may just have to use that word, but I was just
wondering whether this convolution can be described
in any other way without using that specific word, but
without making it so vague that the EDA vendor could
do anything else...
Have a good weekend.
Thanks,
Arpad
========================================================
_____
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Comments on BIRD 107.1
Arpad,
We are not going to resolve this until Tuesday.
I will point out that the following words are now used consistently in
sections 2.1.6, 2.2.6 and 3.1.2.1.
The new impulse response is expected to represent the filtered response.
So if the output of AMI_Init is the filter response, ie the channel impulse
response after being filtered. Then I believe that these exact same words
can be used for filtering the GetWave input as well.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:49 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Comments on BIRD 107.1
Sorry to be so picky, but I am not sure that the word
"filters" is the best way to put it. It sort of
implies more than "just convolution". Can we say
"combines, for example by convolution" like this:
| Step 4. The simulation platform takes the output of step 3 and combines
| (for example by convolution) the input
| bitstream and a unit pulse to produce an analog waveform.
Arpad
====================================================
_____
From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:32 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad; IBIS-ATM
Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Comments on BIRD 107.1
All,
I have incorporated the changes Arpad has suggested in this E-mail. Note
that "Step 4" now says
| Step 4. The simulation platform takes the output of step 3 and filters
the input
| bitstream and a unit pulse to produce an analog waveform.
I (and SiSoft) believe that the BIRD can be submitted as enclosed.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:36 PM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Comments on BIRD 107.1
Hello everyone,
I read through the 107.1 draft, and found a couple of minor editorials.
Other than these, we can submit it as far as I am concerned.
1) Grammar: in the text of 2.1.6 we should change "pass" to "passes".
2) Kumar suggested not to use the word "convolves". Is this something
we would want to eliminate from "Step 4"?
3) At the end, we should add that this was discussed on the 4/1 and 4/8
meetings:
The thoughts captured in this BIRD were discussed at the April 1, 2008
meeting of the
IBIS-ATM Working Group. A slide presentation of this material is available
at:
http://tinyurl.com/28ouvx
Thanks,
Arpad
=========================================================================
Other related posts:
