All, At Michael's request that I join the 21st century I am resending this out as a PDF. Walter -----Original Message----- From: Walter Katz [mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:51 AM To: IBIS-ATM Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Comments on BIRD 107.1 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 =========================================================================